Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report for the State of Florida

Home , Estero Bay (California), Florida mangroves, Upper Tampa Bay Park

Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program report for the State of Florida

Item Type monograph

Publisher Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute

Download date 09/10/2021 23:10:12

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/41134 ISSN 1930-1448 Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report for the State of Florida

KARA R. RADABAUGH, CHRISTINA E. POWELL, AND RYAN P. MOYER, EDITORS

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Technical Report No. 21 • 2017 MyFWC.com

Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report for the State of Florida

KARA R. RADABAUGH, CHRISTINA E. POWELL, AND RYAN P. MOYER, EDITORS

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 MyFWC.com

Technical Report 21 • 2017 Rick Scott Governor of Florida

Nick Wiley, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

The Fish and Wildlife Research Institute is a division of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which “[manages] fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people.” The Institute conducts applied research pertinent to managing fishery resources and species of special concern in Florida. Pro- grams focus on obtaining the data and information that managers of fish, wildlife, and ecosystems need to sustain Florida’s natural resources. Topics include managing recreationally and commercially important fish and wildlife species; preserving, managing, and restoring terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats; collecting information related to population status, habitat requirements, life history, and recovery needs of upland and aquatic species; synthesizing ecological, habitat, and socioeconomic information; and developing educational and outreach programs for classroom educators, civic organizations, and the public.

The Institute publishes three series: Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises, Florida Marine Research Publications, and FWRI Technical Reports. FWRI Technical Reports contain information relevant to immediate needs in resource management.

Gil McRae, FWRI Director Bland Crowder, Editor and Production

This publication is available online and may be downloaded at http://myfwc.com/research/publications/scientific/ technical-reports/. Copies may also be obtained from:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue SE St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095 Attn: Librarian

We suggest that this document be cited as follows: Radabaugh, Kara R., Christina E. Powell, and Ryan P. Moyer (eds.). 2017. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report for the State of Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Technical Report No. 21.

Cover and text papers used in this publication meet the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48–1992(R2009).

Cover photograph: Spartina alterniflora and Laguncularia racemosa in St. Petersburg, Florida. Photograph by Ryan P. Moyer Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report for the State of Florida

KARA R. RADABAUGH, CHRISTINA E. POWELL, AND RYAN P. MOYER, EDITORS

Contents

Acknowledgments...... v Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program (CHIMMP)...... vi Contributors and Their Affiliations...... vi Executive Summary...... vii Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1 Coastal wetland ecosystems of Florida...... 1 Ecological and economic value of salt marsh and mangrove ecosystems...... 4 Common threats to Florida’s coastal wetlands...... 5 Classification of coastal wetlands by remote-sensing techniques...... 7 Land cover classification schemes...... 9 Land cover mapping data in Florida...... 13 Monitoring in coastal wetlands...... 17 Long-term monitoring of Florida coastal wetlands: examples of two methodologies...... 20

THE GUANA TOLOMATO MATANZAS NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE...... 20

CRITICAL COASTAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT MONITORING IN TAMPA BAY...... 23 Monitoring resources...... 26 Region-specific chapters...... 27 Works cited...... 27 iv Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 2: Northwest Florida...... 34 Chapter 3: Big Bend and Springs Coast...... 46 Chapter 4: Tampa Bay...... 58 Chapter 5: Sarasota Bay...... 71 Chapter 6: Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay...... 78 Chapter 7: Collier County...... 88 Chapter 8: Everglades...... 98 Chapter 9: Florida Keys...... 109 Chapter 10: Biscayne Bay...... 116 Chapter 11: Palm Beach and Broward Counties...... 123 Chapter 12: Indian River Lagoon...... 134 Chapter 13: Northeast Florida...... 144 Chapter 14: Conclusions and Recommendations...... 155 Appendix A, Acronym List...... 158 Appendix B, Species list...... 160 Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida v

Scores of fiddler crabs (Uca spp.) in a Spartina alterniflora salt marsh in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Photograph by Ryan P. Moyer. Acknowledgments

This report was funded by a grant from Florida’s State wetland acreages for this report. Amber Whittle and Shan- Wildlife Grants Program in order to support the study of non Whaley completed the technical review of the docu- high-priority coastal habitats in accordance with the State ment. Bland Crowder completed scientific review, copy Wildlife Action Plan. The Coastal Habitat Integrated Map- review, and layout. Several FWC coastal wetlands interns ping and Monitoring Program (CHIMMP) was based on and technicians assisted with CHIMMP vegetation mon- the framework established by the Seagrass Integrated Map- itoring or editing (Amanda Chappel, Ioana Bociu, Allie ping and Monitoring (SIMM) program and reports gener- Wilcox, Barbara Clark, Danielle Pavlik, Joshua Michael, ated by Laura Yarbro, Paul Carlson Jr., and numerous oth- Dana Parkinson, Stuart Penoff, Victoria Manzella, Josh- er contributors from across Florida. The CHIMMP editors ua Breithaupt, Emma Dontis, Taylor Nielsen, and Reba wish to thank Amber Whittle, Kathleen OKeife, Andrea Campbell). Alden, and Caroline Gorga for their support and guidance This report is a collaboration among many authors throughout the course of CHIMMP . We also wish to thank from governmental and independent agencies. The views, the dozens of scientists and managers from across Florida statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations who contributed directly to the writing of this report and expressed herein are those of the authors and do not nec- to the many others who provided comments and contribu- essarily reflect the views of the State of Florida, the Na- tions during the CHIMMP workshops. Christi Santi, a GIS tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. specialist with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or Commission (FWC), created regional maps and calculated any of their subagencies. vi Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program (CHIMMP) The Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Moni- together coastal wetland scientists and managers from toring Program, or CHIMMP, was initiated by the Coastal across Florida. Attendees presented their work on current Wetlands Group at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conser- mangrove and salt marsh mapping and monitoring efforts vation Commission’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and compiled recommendations for CHIMMP and future (FWRI) in St. Petersburg, Florida. CHIMMP was based coastal wetland endeavors in Florida. The regional bound- on the framework established by the Seagrass Integrated aries and content for chapters in this report were estab- Mapping and Monitoring (SIMM) program (myfwc.com/ lished based upon recommendations of attendees at the research/habitat/seagrasses/projects/active/simm/). The 2014 workshop. See ocean.floridamarine.org/CHIMMP/ main objectives of CHIMMP were to build a network of for further details concerning the CHIMMP workshops. collaboration among salt marsh and mangrove mapping Many attendees of the 2014 workshop volunteered and monitoring programs in Florida to identify the status to contribute to the regional chapters of this report. Ad- and needs of coastal wetlands and to make recommenda- ditional report coauthors were added based on regional tions for their management. An additional component of need and personal recommendations. As a result of the CHIMMP, still under way at the time of the writing of this collaborative nature of the report, the style and level of report, is the side-by-side assessment of a variety of coast- detail vary among chapters based upon contributing au- al wetland mapping and monitoring techniques. thors and regional data availability. Unless otherwise not- Three CHIMMP workshops were held at the FWRI ed, all photographs in this document were taken by the in April 2014, September 2015, and January 2017 to bring CHIMMP editors for this report.

Contributors and Their Affiliations See Appendix A for affiliation acronyms

Shauna Ray Allen USNPS Maria Merrill FWC Eric Anderson Palm Beach County Chris Miller St. Leo University Jeff Beal FWC Ryan P. Moyer FWC James W. Beever III SWFRPC E.J. Neafsey FGCU Lisa Beever CHNEP Andrea Noel FDEP Chris Bergh TNC Jon Perry Janicki Environmental Ron Brockmeyer SJRWMD Christina Powell FWC Hyun Jung Cho Bethune-Cookman University Ellen Raabe USGS Frank Courtney FWC Kara Radabaugh FWC Lindsay Cross Florida Wildlife Corridor Nicole Rankin USFWS Nikki Dix GTMNERR Pablo Ruiz USNPS William Ellis St. Leo University Christi Santi FWC Sharon Ewe FCE LTER Jill Schmid RBNERR Beth Fugate FDEP Brian Sharpe FDEP Laura Geselbracht TNC Ed Sherwood TBEP Randy Grau FWC Joseph M. Smoak USF St. Petersburg Marion Hedgepeth SFWMD Caitlin Snyder ANERR Craig van der Heiden IRC Linda Sunderland Broward County Kris Kaufman NOAA Restoration Center Theresa Thom USNPS Phyllis Klarmann Palm Beach County John Tucker St. Lucie County Katie Konchar FWC Craig van der Heiden IRC Curtis Kruer Coastal Resources Group Kathy Worley CSWF Jay Leverone SBEP Shannon Whaley FWC Roy R. (Robin) Lewis III Coastal Resources Group Amber Whittle FWC Shelly Marshall Escambia County Kim Wren ANERR Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida vii

A mixed forest of mature Rhizophora mangle, Avicennia germinans, and Laguncularia racemosa (red, black, and white mangroves) in Weedon Island Preserve on Tampa Bay, Florida. Photograph by Ryan P. Moyer. Executive Summary

Mangrove swamps and salt marshes provide valu- wetlands were ditched or impounded in attempts to con- able ecological services to coastal ecosystems in Florida. trol the mosquito population, drastically altering local Coastal wetlands are an important nursery for many eco- hydrology and increasing the range of tidal influence. logically and commercially important fish and inverte- Urban and agricultural water demand has also reduced brates. The vegetation stabilizes shorelines, protecting the flow of both surface and groundwater, further exacer- coast from wave energy, storm surge, and erosion. Coastal bating saltwater intrusion in conjunction with sea-level wetlands are also able to filter surface water runoff, re- rise. While salt marshes and mangroves can accumulate moving excess nutrients and many pollutants. Peat de- substrate by trapping sediment and organic deposits, they posits sequester large amounts of carbon, making coastal may be forced to migrate inland if accretion rates cannot wetlands a key sink in global carbon cycles. keep pace with rising waters. This process may result in Mangroves and salt marshes, however, are vulnerable reduced habitat extent if coastal wetlands are pinched to both direct and indirect threats from human develop- out by nearby coastal development or sloped topography. ment. Current threats include continued habitat loss, hy- Native vegetation must also compete for space against in- drologic alteration of surface and groundwater, sea-level vasive species such as Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian rise, and invasive vegetation. Florida has extensive flood pepper) and Casuarina spp. (Australian pines), which have control and drainage structures that concentrate fresh- encroached upon the edges of coastal wetland habitat. water flow, resulting in widely variable salinity in coast- Mangrove and salt marsh ecosystems are often in al wetlands. From the early to mid-1900s, many coastal flux. Marsh vegetation can rapidly overtake regions of viii Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors cold-induced mangrove die-offs. As mangroves recov- Content of each chapter includes a general introduction er, they slowly shade out the marsh vegetation. In the to the region, location-specific threats to salt marshes and past few decades, mangrove acreage has increased in mangroves, a summary of selected mapping and moni- many regions of Florida. A recent decreased frequency toring programs, and recommendations for protection, in cold events has facilitated the northern expansion of management, and monitoring. Land cover maps in this mangroves. In southern Florida, mangroves are also en- report generally use data from the most recent water croaching into adjacent inland habitats, particularly salt management district LULC maps. marshes. The effects of mangrove expansion on coastal Through feedback compiled at the CHIMMP work- wetland ecosystem services are the subject of multiple shops and during the writing of this collaborative report, ongoing research projects throughout Florida. Such proj- several needs and recommendations were identified for ects rely on quality spatial and temporal data of wetland Florida coastal wetlands: habitat coverage. • Methodologically consistent, long-term statewide According to the 2016 Cooperative Land Cover Map monitoring is needed to track coastal wetland respons- (version 3.2), Florida contains approximately 378,690 es to altered environmental conditions. acres (153,250 ha) of salt marshes and 571,750 acres (231,380 ha) of mangrove swamp. The Cooperative Land • Land classification schemes are not designed to catego- Cover maps are one example of the numerous land cover rize a mixture of salt marsh and mangrove vegetation. data sets that include mapping of coastal wetland extent This deficiency hinders tracking mangrove expansion, in Florida. These national, state, or local mapping pro- as mangroves often occur as individuals or clusters in grams use an array of land cover classification techniques. salt marsh vegetation. While nomenclature may vary, most of these classification • Management of freshwater inflow is key to maintain- schemes include categories for salt marsh and mangrove ing appropriate salinity levels for coastal ecosystems. habitats. Land cover maps are created by classifying land • Through the early identification of stressed mangroves, cover in satellite images or aerial photography. Random- managers can address hydrologic issues to prevent or ized ground truthing is critical for determining classifica- lessen mangrove die-offs induced by poor hydrologic tion accuracy. Areal land classifications may vary widely flushing. among mapping data sets, requiring careful awareness on the part of the user, and are often available for only one • Cooperation is necessary among federal, state, and time period. The land use/land cover (LULC) maps from local governmental agencies and nonprofit groups to Florida’s water management districts provide the founda- coordinate connectivity among preserved lands and tion for the most recent mapping data. However, the years to establish buffer zones for landward coastal wetland when LULC maps were created vary among the districts migration. and refinement of methods can hinder direct comparison • Invasive vegetation encroaches on the boundaries of of land cover extent over time. coastal wetlands. Preventing the further spread of these Coastal wetland monitoring programs are often exotics requires constant effort and vigilance. short-lived and vary widely in methodology. Monitoring most commonly occurs on protected public lands or at wetland mitigation or restoration sites. These monitoring projects are rarely long-term due to a lack of funding; restoration sites are generally monitored for only a few years. Although long-term funding is difficult to secure, monitoring over long time scales is increasingly important due to regional uncertainties as to how coastal wetland vegetation and substrate accretion will respond to sea-level rise, altered freshwater hydrology, and other disturbances. While periodic land cover mapping programs can capture large-scale changes in habitat extent, smaller-scale species shifts among mangrove and salt marsh vegetation are best captured by on-the-ground monitoring. The chapters in this report summarize recent mapping and monitoring programs in each region of Florida. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Kara R. Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Christina E. Powell, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Nikki Dix, Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Laura Geselbracht, The Nature Conservancy Roy R. (Robin) Lewis III, Coastal Resources Group Ryan P. Moyer, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Coastal wetland ecosystems of Florida alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) are the most common plants in Florida salt marshes. J. roemerianus and S. al- Mangrove and salt marsh ecosystems occupy the in- terniflora typically grow in monotypic bands with abrupt tertidal zones along the coast of Florida. Salt marshes transitions; S. alterniflora is more tolerant of flooding and dominate the coast in northern Florida where tempera- dominates the low marsh, while J. roemerianus tolerates a tures occasionally dip below freezing, while mangroves are wider range in soil salinity and dominates the high marsh predominant in the warmer, southern regions. In much of (Stout 1984, Montague and Wiegert 1990). S. alterniflora Florida, the ranges of mangroves and salt marshes over- stands range widely in both height and primary produc- lap, and salt marshes often occur landward of a mangrove tivity. Shoots are frequently less than 1.6 ft (0.5 m) tall, fringe (Figure 1.1). although along banks of tidal creeks shoots may reach heights of 5–10 ft (1.5–3 m) (Weigart and Freeman 1990). Salt marsh vegetation J. roemerianus is generally found in the more landward high marsh, but may also be found in tidal creeks and in Salt marshes, also known as tidal or saltwater marsh- patches amid S. alterniflora on mounds with slightly high- es, occur along the coastal areas of Florida in regions er elevation. that are protected from large waves by barrier islands, Other salt-tolerant plants in salt marshes include Dis- river mouths, or sloping topography and shallow coast- tichlis spicata (saltgrass), Monanthochloe littoralis (key al waters (Wiegert and Freeman 1990). The emergent grass), Spartina spartinae (Gulf cordgrass), Batis mariti- vegetation in salt marshes is predominantly composed ma (saltwort), Sesuvium portulacastrum (sea purslane) of salt-tolerant grasses, rushes, succulents, and shrubs. and Salicornia spp. (glassworts). For detailed species lists, Marsh profiles and dominant vegetation vary with cli- see Montague and Wiegert 1990 and USFWS 1999. Man- mate, wave energy, tidal amplitude, geology, and coastal groves may also mix with J. roemerianus and S. alterniflo- elevation. A marsh is generally separated into two distinct ra (Figures 1.2 and 1.3), especially at the salt marsh–man- regions, low marsh and high marsh, based upon frequen- grove transition. The high marsh is occupied by a more cy of tidal flooding and dominant vegetation. The low diverse array of plant species, and inland species of plants marsh is flooded during the daily tidal cycle, while the may be found intruding onto its landward edge and in re- high marsh is flooded only occasionally, during extremely gions of slightly higher elevation. The oligohaline marsh, high tides (Wiegert and Freeman 1990). with its low salinity of 0.5–5, is also habitat for vegetation Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush) and Spartina with a lower salinity tolerance. 2 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 1.1. Extent of salt marsh and mangrove habitat within Florida.

Salt barrens (also known as salt pans, salt flats, or Mangrove vegetation salterns) are unvegetated, exposed flats with high soil salinity as a result of salt left behind by evaporated sea- Florida mangrove communities are composed of water. Similarly, salt marsh algae beds are salt barrens three mangrove species, Rhizophora mangle (red man- dominated by algae rather than vascular plants. Al- grove), Avicennia germinans (black mangrove), and La- though they lack the emergent vegetation characteristic guncularia racemosa (white mangrove). The closely as- of coastal wetlands, salt barrens are often classified as sociated Conocarpus erectus (buttonwood tree) is also a subcategory of salt marshes within land cover classi- common in Florida mangrove forests. Mangroves are fac- fication schemes or simply included as part of the salt ultative halophytes, meaning they grow well in brackish marsh mosaic. and salt water but do not require it for survival (Krauss et Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 3

Figure 1.2. An abrupt transition from Juncus Figure 1.3. Low tide in a low marsh dominated by roemerianus salt marsh to mangroves. Spartina alterniflora and juvenile mangroves.

Figure 1.4. The prop roots of Rhizophora mangle Figure 1.5. The pneumatophore roots of Avicennia stabilize the tree and provide large surfaces for aeration. germinans facilitate oxygen uptake. al. 2008). Rates of mangrove growth and propagule estab- branches (Figure 1.4) stabilize the tree and allow the roots lishment are highest in low to moderate salinities (Ball et to take in oxygen directly from the air rather than from al. 1997, Krauss et al. 2008). The mangroves’ adaptations the coastal soil, which is frequently anaerobic (Scholander that allow them to cope with frequently inundated soil et al. 1955, Odum and McIvor 1990). R. mangle is a salt that is both anaerobic and high in salinity enables them excluder; the trees avoid taking up salt via a reverse os- to outcompete other plant species in coastal regions. The mosis process (Scholander 1968, Scott 2004) or by taking shade cast by these tall trees also enables them to outcom- up freshwater directly when it is available (Kathiresan and pete other salt-tolerant species. Bingham 2001). C. erectus, L. racemosa, and A. germi- Rhizophora mangle grows closest to the water’s edge. nans are all salt excreters and expel salt through glands in The large prop roots that extend from its trunk and lower their leaves and petioles. 4 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 1.6. Leaf examples of Rhizophora mangle Figure 1.7. Excreted salt accumulates on the surface of (left), Avicennia germinans (center), and Laguncularia Avicennia germinans leaves. racemosa (right). Upper surfaces of leaves are shown in the top row; lower surfaces are in the bottom row.

Avicennia germinans generally grows intermixed Salt marsh and mangrove communities are often with or landward of R. mangle. They have an exten- in flux with one another (Montague and Odum 1997). sive network of cable roots and vertical root projections Mangrove communities often overtake salt marsh habitat known as pneumatophores (Figure 1.5) that provide sta- (Figure 1.3), as the herbaceous marsh vegetation cannot bility and aeration for the trees (Scholander et al. 1955, survive in the shade of the mangrove trees. Occasional Scott 2004). The leaves (Figures 1.6 and 1.7), often en- cold events, however, can cause extensive mangrove die- crusted in salt, are a shiny green and have small hairs on offs, after which salt marsh plants rapidly replace the the lighter-colored underside. A. germinans is the most mangrove swamps. The marsh may once again return to a cold tolerant of the Florida mangrove species and can mangrove-dominated ecosystem after the trees grow back sprout from its root system after cold-induced dieback from root stock or the establishment and growth of new (Odum and McIvor 1990). mangrove propagules. Laguncularia racemosa is generally found intermixed with or at higher elevations than A. germinans. L. rac- Ecological and economic value of salt marsh emosa can occasionally develop vertical roots including pneumatophores or pneumathodes, a slender vertical and mangrove ecosystems root that lacks an epidermis (Geissler et al. 2002, Nelson Both mangrove swamps and salt marshes provide 2011). Also a salt excreter, L. racemosa has more oval ecological and economic value through their ability to leaves than the other mangrove species, and extrafloral stabilize shorelines, support coastal fisheries, sequester nectaries on the petiole are visible as small protuberances carbon, and filter nutrients and other pollutants from (Figure 1.6). runoff (Thayer et al. 1987, Kathiresan and Bingham Mangrove development is a viviparous process be- 2001). The value of the ecosystem services provided by cause the embryo germinates and grows as a propagule coastal wetlands has been placed at $10,000 per hect- while still attached to the parent tree. The propagules are are (Barbier et al. 2011, Kirwan and Megonical 2013). dispersed by water currents and can establish quickly in Economic value varies widely by location and study, as new areas through rapid root growth. storm surge protection and surface water treatment may Conocarpus erectus (buttonwood tree) grows on the be assessed at a higher value when adjacent to coastal landward edge of mangrove swamps. The buttonwood development. tree gets its name from its small green spherical flowers. Salt marshes have one of the highest rates of prima- While not a true mangrove, C. erectus is a member of the ry production among the world’s ecosystems (Montague family Combretaceae along with L. racemosa (Nelson and Wiegert 1990). Atmospheric carbon is sequestered 2011). C. erectus is salt tolerant, but it does not have a in plant biomass and buried as peat in both salt marsh specialized root system or propagules (Odum et al. 1982, and mangrove ecosystems (Table 1.1) (Kathiresan and Nelson 2011). Bingham 2001, Russell and Greening 2015). Carbon that Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 5

Table 1.1. Estimated rates of carbon sequestration cus (tarpon), Crassostrea virginica (eastern oyster), Call- and denitrification (mean ± standard error) in selected inectes sapidus (blue crab), and coastal shrimp (Lewis et ecosystems (table adapted from Bowden 1986, Mcleod al. 1985, Wiegert and Freeman 1990, Barbier et al. 2011). et al. 2011, and Russel and Greening 2015). Both local and migratory birds use salt marshes as feed- ing and nesting grounds. Mycteria americana (Wood Carbon sequestration Denitrification Habitat rate (gC/m2/yr) rate (gN/m2/yr) Stork), Platalea ajaja (Roseate Spoonbill), Pandion haliaetus (Osprey), Tringa semipalmata (Eastern Willet), and Mangrove 226 ± 39 4 ± 2.0 multiple species of herons and egrets use coastal wetlands Salt marsh 218 ± 24 1 ± 0.1 for foraging or roosting. Salt-tolerant reptiles also use the Seagrass 138 ± 38 9 ± 2.2 lush habitat; Malaclemys terrapin (diamondback terra- Temperate forest 5.1 ± 1.0 0.1–1 pin) and some subspecies of Nerodia fasciata (salt marsh Tropical forest 4.0 ± 0.5 0.3 snake) reside exclusively in salt marshes and mangroves Boreal forest 4.6 ± 2.1 trace (Montague and Wiegert 1990). Salt marshes and mangroves stabilize shorelines, protecting inland ecosystems and human developments from is captured and sequestered by coastal wetlands and sea- wave energy, storm surge, and erosion (Barbier et al. 2011). grass beds, known as blue carbon, acts as a sink in the While the shorelines of salt marshes are often eroded global carbon cycle (Cebrian 2002, Kathiresan 2012). Loss during large storms, the eroded sediment may be returned of coastal wetlands across the planet may therefore have a to the marshes during calmer intervals (Pethick 1992, significant impact on the global carbon budget. Likewise, Boorman 1999). The dynamic capacity to erode and rede- the carbon sequestration that takes place as a result of posit sediment can make salt marshes more valuable than coastal wetland restoration projects can now earn carbon sea walls for protecting inland property, but marshes must credits for greenhouse gas reductions (VCS 2015). be sufficiently broad in order to be a resilient storm buffer Coastal wetlands play an important ecological role (King and Lester 1995, Boorman 1999). Mangroves also in the breakdown and biogeochemical cycling of organic stabilize shorelines and reduce the wave and wind energy matter, nutrients, and even some pollutants. The grasses from tropical storms, providing some protection to inland in salt marshes slow the passage of water, enabling sedi- developments (Kathiresan 2012, McIvor et al. 2012). ment deposition and facilitating nutrient uptake (Ham- mer 1989, Kathiresan and Bingham 2001, Barbier et al. 2011). Nutrients are not only taken up by plants and algae, Common threats to Florida’s coastal wetlands but nitrate and nitrite are also converted to atmospheric nitrogen by denitrifying bacteria (Table 1.1). Water that Habitat loss has run through coastal wetlands has a lower nutrient In the early 1800s Florida had an estimated 20.3 concentration, reducing the need for artificial stormwa- million acres (8.2 million ha) of freshwater and coast- ter treatment (Russel and Greening 2015). Wetlands can al wetlands (Dahl 2005). In the past one hundred years, also remove low amounts of water pollutants and metals high rates of coastal development in Florida have been such as iron, copper, and manganese through adsorption detrimental to both habitat extent and health of coast- to fine-grained sediments and subsequent deposition (Lee al ecosystems. Coastal wetlands have been destroyed et al. 2006). If the sediment is later disturbed, however, directly due to residential and commercial development these pollutants are again released to the water column and indirectly by pollution and changes in hydrology. (Dyer 1995). While sediments in mangrove swamps can Hefner (1986) estimated that from the mid-1950s to the have high concentrations of heavy metals, the mangrove mid-1970s, before wetlands were protected, 72,000 acres trees themselves maintain a low heavy metal concentra- (29,137 ha) of wetlands were lost each year. By the 1980s, tion (Kathiresan and Bingham 2001). an estimated 23% (150,000 acres/60,702 ha) of historical Because they are situated on coastal boundaries, mangrove coverage had been lost to development (Lewis mangroves and salt marshes provide essential ecological et al. 1985). Governmental regulations such as the Clean services to both terrestrial and marine species. The dense Water Act in 1972 helped slow the filling of coastal wet- vegetation provides a complex habitat that is used as a lands (Dahl 2011). From 1985 to 1996, this annual rate of nursery shelter by many ecologically and commercially loss decreased to 5,000 acres (2,023 ha) due to the protec- important fish and invertebrate species, such asCentro - tion efforts of federal, state, and local governments and pomus undecimalis (common snook), Megalops atlanti- nongovernmental organizations (Dahl 2005). 6 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 1.8. Dead mangroves at the proposed Fruit Farm Creek mangrove restoration area within the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Naples, Florida. Photograph by Cynthia Sapp.

Altered hydrology natural water levels and restricted tidal flow, resulting in the decline of native flora and fauna and the incursion of Hydrology has been drastically altered across Flori- freshwater species such as Typha spp. (cattails) and var- da by road construction, flood control structures, urban ious species of invasive submerged aquatic vegetation. and agricultural water usage, mosquito ditching, and Impounded marshlands did, however, prove beneficial for shoreline hardening. Impermeable surfaces and drain- some Florida species, particularly wading birds. age systems concentrate terrestrial runoff, decreasing salinity in many coastal wetlands while concentrating freshwater outflow near culverts and streams (Lee et Climate change and sea-level rise al. 2006). Seawalls, breakwaters, impoundments and Dahl (2011) estimated that 99% of coastal wetland other constructed features also alter hydrologic flow losses from 2004 through 2009 in the contiguous Unit- and can cause coastlines to be starved of or inundated ed States were due to saltwater intrusion, storms, land by sediment (Bulleri and Chapman 2010). In some re- subsidence, sea-level rise, and associated erosion and gions, blocked tidal flows and resulting stagnant water marine processes. Sea level has crept up at a rate of 2–3 can slowly kill mangroves, resulting in localized die-offs mm/yr over the past 50 years for most locations in Flori- (Figure 1.8). A lack of flushing can cause stress in the da (NOAA 2014). Sea-level rise has large implications for form of stagnation, anoxia, or hypersalinity. Stressed salt marshes and mangrove communities as the vegetative vegetation is more vulnerable to secondary stressors community is affected primarily by frequency of tide in- such as fungal infections and excessive herbivory (Silli- undation and salinity (Stout 1984). man et al. 2005, Elmer et al. 2012). Coastal wetlands can accommodate a certain extent From the 1930s to the 1960s, an extensive array of of sea-level rise as they accumulate peat and trap sed- mosquito ditches was dug to drain marshes in an effort iment washed in by tides or storms. If these feedback to reduce the Aedes spp. (marsh mosquito) population mechanisms of vertical substrate accretion, subsurface (Montague and Wiegert 1990). In the 1940s, salt marshes expansion, and plant growth rate manage to keep up with were also sprayed with DDT, which decreased the mosqui- sea-level rise, they may allow coastal wetlands to maintain to population until DDT-resistant strains of mosquitoes their current position (Kirwan and Megonigal 2013). But developed. Salt marshes were also impounded and flood- sea-level rise and the concurrent increase in the salinity ed for mosquito control, as Aedes spp. will not lay eggs of pore water will likely accelerate the decomposition of on standing water. These marsh impoundments altered soil organic matter in regions previously exposed to low Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 7 salinity. Seawater provides sulfate, which microbes can use to a certain extent, high nutrient concentrations can cause as a terminal electron acceptor for the remineralization of eutrophication, hypoxia from the resulting algal blooms, organic matter, enabling decomposition in anaerobic en- and declines in species diversity (Lee et al. 2006). vironments (Snedaker 1993). Landward salt marsh migration is possible where natural buffer zones of appropriate Invasive species elevation are present, yet this may be hindered by local topography, urban development, or hardened shorelines Invasive species such as Schinus terebinthifolius (Bra- such as seawalls or riprap (Montague and Wiegert 1990). zilian pepper), Melaleuca quinquenevria (melaleuca), Inland migration of mangrove communities often and Casuarina spp. (Australian pines) are maintaining results in mangroves encroaching on and overtaking salt a persistent presence on the borders of coastal wetland marsh habitat (Saintilan et al. 2009, Krauss et al. 2011). habitat in Florida. Rapid growth of these invasive species The extent of mangrove communities increased 35% often outpaces growth by native marsh plants, particular- from 1927 to 2005 in the Ten Thousand Islands Na- ly after a disturbance such as a hurricane or construction tional Wildlife Refuge as mangroves overtook adjacent (USFWS 1999). S. terebinthifolius can easily take over a inland habitats (Krauss et al. 2011). This mangrove ex- region after disturbances and produces chemicals that im- pansion is attributed to a combination of sea-level rise, pede the growth of other plants. M. quinquenevria can altered hydrology, and other interacting factors (Krauss invade pristine ecosystems; its roots then alter hydrologic et al. 2011). patterns by absorbing large amounts of water, effectively Mangroves have expanded their range both land- excluding other plants. As a tall, salt-tolerant tree, Casua- ward and northward in Florida (Williams et al. 2014). rina spp. easily shades out and displaces other species and A. germinans expansion northward has been linked to a dense layer of its needlelike leaves accumulates under a recent decrease in the frequency of cold events in cen- the trees, hindering the growth of native seedlings (Batish tral to northern Florida (Stevens et al. 2006). Cavanaugh and Singh 1998). et al. (2014) found a strong correlation between the increase in mangrove cover and the decrease in the num- Illegal trimming of mangroves ber of days on which the temperature fell below −4°C. Mangrove extent north of 27°N latitude has increased While a more minor concern than the previously men- in recent decades on the eastern coast of Florida; in tioned threats to coastal wetlands, mangrove trimming some areas the extent of mangroves doubled from 1985 practices for waterfront views often do not adhere to the to 2011 (Cavanaugh et al. 2014). Portions of this recent 1996 Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act. Common mangrove expansion can be attributed to recovery from improper trimming includes severe hedging, in which the cold-event mortalities from the 1960s through the 1980s canopy of the mangroves is cut back to form a low hedge (Giri and Long 2014). In their northward migration, with unobstructed waterfront view. Hedging can meet mangroves encroach on and replace salt marsh habi- trimming guidelines so long as the upper canopy is pre- tat. Given continued warming trends, mangroves may served, generally leaving at least 6 feet of height (1.83 m). overtake salt marsh ecosystems for significant portions Detailed mangrove trimming guidelines for homeowners of the coast along northeastern Florida and the Gulf are available from the Florida Department of Environmen- of Mexico (Osland et al. 2013). While mangroves sup- tal Protection at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/man- port an important and productive ecosystem, local and groves/docs/Mangrove-Homeowner-Guide.pdf. migratory birds that use salt marshes as foraging and breeding grounds may be disadvantaged by this loss of Classification of coastal wetlands habitat (Krauss et al. 2011). by remote-sensing techniques Several techniques are used to categorize land cov- Poor water quality er and determine the spatial extent of coastal wetlands. Runoff from urban and agricultural areas brings nu- Data sources include aerial photography and videogra- trients, pesticides, herbicides, hydrocarbons, and heavy phy, high- and medium-resolution satellite images, hy- metals into coastal wetlands (Kathiresan and Bingham perspectral sensors, radar, and LiDAR (Light Detection 2001, Lee et al. 2006). Salt marshes have also been used And Ranging), all of which provide data of variable util- directly as dumps for industrial and household pollutants ity, detail, and cost (Kuenzer et al. 2011). Visual elements and sewage (Montague and Wiegert 1990, Lee et al. 2006). of remote sensing images, such as color, gray tones, shad- While wetlands can absorb and utilize nutrients in runoff ows, texture, and proximal associations, can be used to 8 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors determine land use and wetland extent (Lyon 2001). Satellite imagery Remote sensing of near-infrared light can be used to determine the health of plants. Live plants reflect infrared The use of aerial photography for land use map- light; this reflected light is frequently visualized using a ping has somewhat declined with the advent of satellite red color on aerial images. Healthy plants therefore ap- imagery (Kuenzer et al. 2011). Costs increase with spa- pear bright pink or magenta, while unhealthy or dead tial coverage, so satellite data are more cost-effective for plants appear darker (Lyon 2001, Kuenzer et al. 2011). large-scale projects. Temporal variability in images due to The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) is calibration drift or variable sun angle and weather can be calculated using visible and near-infrared light to assess smoothed by image preprocessing and compiling images vegetative ground cover or biomass. Near-infrared wave- from multiple dates (Lyon 2001). Medium-resolution im- lengths are also useful for locating the waterline, as even agery is useful for general land use mapping and change a small amount of water will absorb infrared light (Lyon detection on a large scale, but the spatial and temporal 2001). resolution may be too coarse to reveal details such as Remote sensing of coastal wetlands is complicated mangrove species or damage immediately following a by the variety of substrates and vegetation that make hurricane or other extreme event. The medium-resolu- up these habitats. Leaves, branches, soil, and water are tion images used for mangrove mapping commonly come all parts of mangrove ecosystems, yet each has a unique from the Landsat (land remote-sensing satellite) series spectral signature. Each mangrove species has unique (Kuenzer et al. 2011). High-resolution imagery provides spectral characteristics; even within a single species the greater detail (resolution of 1.6–13 ft/0.5–4 m) than medi- spectral signature can vary with physiology, vitality, age, um-resolution imagery but is more expensive. and season (Blasco et al. 1998, Wang et al. 2008, Kuenzer et al. 2011). Categorization is further complicated by the Active remote sensing patchiness of mangrove ecosystems and intermingling In active remote sensing, terrestrial features are with other types of vegetation. Intermittent patches of mapped by measuring the time it takes a pulse of a given mangroves can be misclassified as mud flats or residen- wavelength to bounce off of a target and return to the tial areas. Widely variable water levels in coastal wet- sensor. LiDAR uses visible wavelengths, whereas radar lands due to tidal fluctuation, drought, or floods also uses microwaves. Unlike passive sensors that depend upon make it difficult to discern if differing appearances are visible light, active radar sensors can be used in cloudy due to a change in land use or water level (Gao 1998). weather and at night (Kuenzer et al. 2011). Because the Precipitation also affects the appearance of waterways; rapid laser pulses can penetrate gaps in tree canopy and clear, shallow water may appear dark or reflective, yet reach the ground, LiDAR is useful for determining tree after rain the same waterway may be opaque due to sus- height and topography beneath mangroves. This tech- pended sediments (Lyon 2001). nique is less useful in salt marshes as the dense cover of vegetation prevents the laser pulses from reaching the Aerial photography and videography ground (Medeiros et al. 2015). Aerial photographs provide excellent spatial resolution at relatively low cost. They are extremely useful for Image categorization of land use local projects or for the creation of highly detailed maps, Land cover categorization is initialized with either particularly where wetland extent is narrow or patchy. unsupervised or supervised classification of a training The availability of historical photographs makes aerial data set. In supervised classification, a researcher uses a photography a useful tool for the study of changes in land data set of locations with known land cover to determine use. Care must be taken, however, because image appear- the spectral signatures of each land cover type. In unsu- ance can vary daily with cloud cover and shadow extent. pervised training, a computer algorithm clusters data Seasonal changes and precipitation alter foliage density based upon similar spectral characteristics (Lyon 2001, and color, so it is optimal to compare land-use changes McCarthy et al. 2015). The accuracy of these prelimi- using photos taken at the same time of day and in the nary clusters to classify land cover types is then assessed same season (Lyon 2001). with ground truthing or aerial photographs. Clusters of similar land cover may be merged and the classification system is edited as needed (Gao 1998, Lyon 2001, Kuen- zer et al. 2011). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 9

Several methods can be used to analyze change in 6000 Wetlands: water table meets or exceeds land land use (Lyon 2001). Before categorization, aerial pho- height for a significant portion of the year tographs may be transformed into single or multiband 6100 Wetland hardwood forests: 66% or more images through image enhancement in order to facili- dominated by wetland hardwood species; freshwa- tate change detection. Alternatively, a principal compo- ter or saltwater nents analysis may be used to compress variability from 6120 Mangrove swamps: dominated by multiple spectral bands into a few principal components mangrove trees, also may include button- (Lyon 2001). In postcategorization methods, two images wood, cabbage palm, and sea grape are categorized into their respective land cover types inde- 6400 Vegetated nonforested wetlands: includes pendently. The resulting land cover maps are then com- freshwater and saltwater marshes pared to each other to discern changes in land use. 6420 Saltwater marshes: dominated by specific salt-tolerant vegetation Land cover classification schemes 6421 Cordgrass: 66% or more of vegetative cover is Spartina spp. A variety of land cover classification schemes ex- 6422 Needlerush: 66% or more of ists both nationally and within Florida. Some of these vegetative cover is J. roemerianus classification schemes place greater emphasis on human development, while others focus on vegetation and The Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida ecosystem characteristics. Many of these schemes are was first published in 1990 by the Florida Natural Areas hierarchical and become more specific at each higher Inventory (FNAI 1990). In 2010, the guide was updated level of classification. Selected statewide and national to provide additional classifications and further informa- classification schemes are summarized in Table 1.2 and tion, such as species data, to aid in distinguishing among described in further detail below. In general C. erectus similar communities. Relevant FNAI 2010 classifications is either included as part of a mangrove swamp classifi- include the following. cation or, in some cases, as a subcategory of mangrove swamps (FNAI 2010). Similarly, salt barrens are included Marine and estuarine vegetated wetlands: intertidal as part of salt marshes, while the Florida Natural Areas or supratidal wetlands with herbaceous or woody Inventory (FNAI) organizes salt barrens as a subcatego- plants and salinity >0.5 ry of salt marshes (FNAI 2010). Classification schemes Salt marsh: herbaceous plants; few shrubs, no trees may further subdivide mangrove and salt marsh habitats Salt flat: dry, exposed salt marsh with bare based on plant species composition (FDOT 1999, Kawu- soil and high salinity; sparse vegetation la 2009, FNAI 2010), mangrove height (Cowardin et al. Mangrove swamp: wetland dominated by man- 1979), and general ecotype regions in Florida (Nature- groves and buttonwood Serve 2007). Some classification schemes also include a Buttonwood forest: dominated by button- separate category for scrub mangrove ecosystems in the wood trees Florida Keys (Gilbert and Stys 2004, Kawula 2009, FNAI Keys tidal rock barren: herbaceous vegetation 2010). and stunted trees, located on regions with exposed limestone in the Florida Keys Florida land cover classification schemes The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com- The Florida Land Use and Cover Classification Sys- mission (FWC) created Florida land cover maps using tem (FLUCCS) was created by the surveying and map- 2003 data from Landsat TM (thematic mapper) satellite ping office of the Florida Department of Transportation imagery (Gilbert and Stys 2004, Stys et al. 2004), updat- (FDOT). The original classifications were published in ing the FWC land cover maps created using 1985–1989 1985 (FDOT 1985) and the current wetland categories data (Kautz et al. 1993). The 2003 land cover project added in the 1999 revision (FDOT 1999). Florida water used unsupervised classification schemes to categorize management districts (WMDs) use FLUCCS for land land cover. The final products included detailed descrip- classifications and may modify them for their district tions of 43 land cover categories, published in Gilbert (SFWMD 2009, SJRWMD 2009). Relevant FLUCCS clas- and Stys (2004). Relevant classifications include the sifications and their corresponding numbers include the following. following. 10 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Table 1.2. Selected land cover and vegetation classification schemes. Name Affiliation Region Coastal Wetland Classification Scheme Reference Florida Land Use and Florida Florida Wetlands FDOT 1999 Cover Classification Department of Wetland hardwood forests System (FLUCCS) Transportation Mangrove swamp (FDOT) Vegetated nonforested wetlands Saltwater marshes Cordgrass Needlerush

Guide to the Natural Florida Natural Florida Marine and estuarine vegetated wetlands FNAI 2010 Communities of Florida Areas Inventory Salt marsh (FNAI) Salt flat Mangrove swamp Buttonwood forest Keys tidal rock barren Descriptions of Florida Fish Florida Marine and estuarine Gilbert and Stys Vegetation and Land and Wildlife Salt marsh 2004 Cover Types Mapped Conservation Mangrove swamp Using Landsat Imagery Commission Scrub mangrove (Keys only) (FWC) Florida Land Cover FWC Florida Estuarine, intertidal Kawula 2009 Classification System Exposed limestone Vegetated Keys tidal rock barren Tidal marsh Tidal marsh barren Saltwater marshes Cordgrass Needlerush Tidal swamp Mangrove Vegetation University of Everglades Forest Rutchey et al. Classification for South Georgia, U.S. Mangrove forest 2006 Florida Natural Areas National Park Woodland Service, South Mangrove woodland Florida Water Shrubland Management Mangrove shrubland District Scrub Mangrove scrub Marsh Salt marsh (partial list; further subdivisions available) NatureServe NatureServe, Southeastern Woody wetlands and riparian NatureServe 2007 Terrestrial Ecological Landfire, United States Caribbean coastal wetland systems Classifications The Nature South Florida mangrove swamp Conservancy Southwest Florida perched barriers tidal swamp and lagoon Herbaceous wetlands Gulf and Atlantic coastal plain tidal marsh systems Atlantic coastal plain Indian River Lagoon tidal marsh Central Atlantic coastal plain salt and brackish tidal marsh Florida Big Bend salt and brackish tidal marsh Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 11

Table 1.2 (continued). Selected land cover and vegetation classification schemes. Name Affiliation Region Coastal Wetland Classification Scheme Reference Classification of U.S. Fish and National Estuarine, intertidal Cowardin et al. Wetlands and Wildlife Service Emergent wetland 1979 Deepwater Habitat of Persistent the United States Scrub-shrub wetland Broad-leaved evergreen Forested wetland Broad-leaved evergreen National Vegetation Federal National Forest and woodland FGDC 2008 Classification Standard, Geographic Data Tropical moist forest v. 2 Committee Mangrove Shrubland and grassland Temperate and boreal shrubland and grassland Temperate and boreal salt marsh (partial list, further subdivisions available) National Land Cover U.S. Geological National Wetlands www.mrlc.gov Data (NLCD) Survey (USGS) Woody wetlands Vogelmann et al. Emergent herbaceous wetlands 1998 Coastal Change National Oceanic National Wetland Klemas et al. Analysis Program and Atmospheric Marine/estuarine emergent wetland 1993, Dobson et (C-CAP) Classification Administration Haline (salt marsh) al. 1995 System (NOAA) Mixohaline (brackish marsh) Estuarine woody wetland Evergreen Forest Scrub–shrub Dead

Marine and estuarine 5000 Estuarine 23. Salt marsh: herbaceous and shrubby wetland 5200 Intertidal in brackish waters 5210 Exposed limestone 24. Mangrove swamp: dominated by mangroves 5211Vegetated and buttonwood trees; transitional regions may 52111 Keys tidal rock barren: include salt marsh species herbaceous vegetation and stunted 25. Scrub mangrove: few small mangroves (Flori- trees, located on regions with ex- da Keys only) posed limestone in the Florida Keys 5240 Tidal marsh: wetland inundated by The Florida Land Cover Classification System (Kawu- tides daily, dominated by herbaceous plants la 2009) was developed to create a single land cover classi- with few shrub fication scheme for Florida by integrating established clas- 5241 Tidal marsh barren: exposed, sification systems. The Florida Land Cover Classification mostly bare dry soil with high salinity System’s hierarchical classification scheme is based on 5242 Saltwater marshes: estuarine wet- the FNAI’s Guide to the Natural Communities of Flor- land dominated by specific salt-tolerant ida (FNAI 1990), FWC land cover descriptions (Gilbert plants and Stys 2004, Stys et al. 2004), FLUCCS classifications 52421 Cordgrass (FDOT 1999), and modifications made by various WMDs 52422 Needlerush (Kawula 2009, SFWMD 2009, SJRWMD 2009). Relevant 5250 Tidal swamp: wetland dominated by classifications (nonvegetated classifications omitted) -in mangroves or buttonwood clude the following. 5251 Mangrove: coastal hardwood community with mangroves, buttonwood, and associated vegetation 12 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

The Vegetation Classification for South Florida ly saturated at all times with brackish waters Natural Areas is a specialized hierarchical classification and flooded regularly by tides system designed for the Everglades and surrounding ar- Southwest Florida perched barriers tidal eas (Rutchey et al. 2006). The system was developed to swamp and lagoon: includes mangrove facilitate tracking vegetation changes as a component of forests with canopies up to 10 m (32 ft) tall the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). and salt marshes. Extends from Tampa Bay to It was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Charlotte Harbor. The term perched refers to cooperation with several other agencies (Rutchey et al. elevated barrier islands 2006). Each of the following categories contains numer- Herbaceous wetland ous species-specific subgroups, including mixtures of 1490 Gulf and Atlantic coastal plain tidal marsh multiple vegetation types. The classification system also systems includes species-specific categories for common invasive Atlantic coastal plain Indian River Lagoon vegetation. Relevant classifications include the following. tidal marsh: primarily high marshes that are protected by barrier islands along the Indian Forest (F): high-density (>50% tree canopy cover) River lagoon stands of trees >5 m (16.4 ft) high Central Atlantic coastal plain salt and brack- Mangrove forest (FM): regularly flooded forests ish tidal marsh: dominated by S. alterniflora with mangrove or buttonwood and J. roemerianus; occurs in northern Florida Woodland (W): low-density stands of trees >5 m (16.4 on the Atlantic coast. Has different tides and ft) high energy than Gulf coast salt marshes Mangrove woodland (WM): regularly flooded Florida Big Bend salt and brackish tidal woodland with mangroves and buttonwood marsh: salt marshes along Big Bend; has low Shrubland (S): high-density stands of trees or shrubs wave energy <5 m (16.4 ft) high Mangrove shrubland (SM): regularly flooded National land cover classification schemes shrubland with mangroves Scrub (C): dwarf trees or low-density shrubs The previously mentioned classification schemes were Mangrove scrub (CM): regularly flooded scrub created specifically for Florida or the southeastern United with mangroves States. National classification schemes often classify land Marsh (M): graminoid or herbaceous vegetation in cover based on vegetation type rather than by species. The shallow water Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Salt marsh (MS): salt-tolerant graminoid or her- United States, developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) for the baceous vegetation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, follows this type of general scheme. Relevant classifications include the following. The NatureServe terrestrial ecological classifications were developed specifically for the southeastern United System: Estuarine (E): impacted by both seawater and States (NatureServe 2007). These ecological descriptions freshwater runoff were prepared by the nonprofit conservation organiza- Subsystem: Intertidal (2): exposed substrate that tions NatureServe (www.natureserve.org) and The Na- is flooded by tides ture Conservancy (www.nature.org) for LANDFIRE Class: Emergent wetland (EM): dominated (landscape fire and resource management planning tools), by herbaceous rooted plants, many of them a geospatial program that includes databases, ecological perennial models, and land cover data for use in fire and resource Subclass: Persistent (1): plant species management (www.landfire.gov). This classification sys- persist until the beginning of the next tem is specific not only to vegetation, but also to regional growing season (includes salt marshes) hydrology, geology, and energy input. Relevant Nature- Class: Scrub-shrub wetland (SS): dominated Serve classifications include the following. by woody vegetation <6 m (19.6 ft) high Subclass: Broad-leaved evergreen (3): Woody wetlands and riparian woody vegetation includes mangroves 1470 Caribbean coastal wetland systems and other salt-tolerant trees, such as South Florida mangrove swamp: dominated buttonwood by mangroves and buttonwood. Soils general- Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 13

Class: Forested wetland (FO): dominated by woody 2.41 Deciduous vegetation >6 m (19.6 ft) high 2.411 Forest Subclass: Broad-leaved evergreen (3): 2.412 Scrub–shrub see above 2.413 Dead 2.42 Evergreen The National Vegetation Classification Standard 2.421 Forest (NVCS, usnvc.org) is a hierarchical system designed by 2.422 Scrub–shrub the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC 2008). 2.423 Dead Relevant classifications include the following. 2.43 Mixed 2.431 Forest 1. Forest and woodland 2.432 Scrub–shrub 1.A Tropical moist forest 2.433 Dead 1.A.4 Mangrove (further classifications available based on location and species) Several of the classification schemes in Florida have 2. Shrubland and grassland crosswalk tables that show equivalent land cover cate- 2.C. Temperate and boreal shrubland and gories among multiple schemes. Due to varying levels of grassland specificity, categories may need to be combined or subdi- 2.C.6 Salt marsh (further classifications vided in order to translate between schemes. As part of available based on location and species) the creation of the Florida Land Cover Classification Sys- tem, crosswalk tables were made between this scheme and National Land Cover Data (NLCD) generated by the classification schemes from FWC, FLUCCS, and WMD USGS uses its own classification system (Vogelmann et al. modifications of FLUCCS (Kawula 2009). 1998, Fry et al. 2011). NLCD data sets are of limited utility to this study because the classifications do not differen- Land cover mapping data in Florida tiate between freshwater and coastal wetlands. Relevant classifications include the following. Land use data in Florida are available from a variety of regional, state, and national sources. A listing of data pro- 4.3 Wetlands viders is compiled Table 1.3 and summarized in further de- 4.31 Woody wetlands: soil periodically saturated tail below. This summary is also inclusive of some organi- with water and vegetation cover is >20% forest or zations that modify, enhance, and compile data generated shrubs by other providers. Land cover assessments generally relied 4.32 Emergent herbaceous wetlands: soil periodi- on the use of satellite imagery or aerial photography. Land cally saturated with water and vegetation cover is use classification schemes vary among agencies. >80% perennial herbaceous

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- National land cover data sets istration’s (NOAA’s) Coastal Change Analysis Pro- For more than 30 years, the National Wetlands Inven- gram (C-CAP) uses its own classification system. The tory (NWI) generated and updated highly detailed wet- original classification system was originally described land maps following the Cowardin et al. (1979) classifica- by Klemas et al. (1993), and an updated summary is tion scheme using a variety of methods and data sources, available in Dobson et al. (1995), which also explains including aerial images (USFWS 2010). NWI maps are how the land cover categories compare with those of now made available online at www.fws.gov/wetlands Cowardin et al. (1997). Relevant classifications include /index.html. the following The National Gap Analysis Program (GAP), run by the USGS, links together geographic layers of land cover, 2.0 Wetland vertebrate species distribution data, and land conserva- 2.3 Marine/estuarine emergent wetland tion status (gapanalysis.usgs.gov). Data sets were creat- 2.31 Haline: salt marsh where salinity is ≥30 ed using multiseason Landsat ETM+ (Enhanced The- 2.32 Mixohaline: brackish marsh where matic Mapper Plus) imagery from 1999 through 2001 salinity is 5–30 with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets to 2.4 Estuarine woody wetland model vegetation. General land cover classes from the 14 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Table 1.3. Selected large-scale providers of coastal wetland land cover data in Florida Affiliation, region of Program Data origin, most recent data Classification scheme Reference map extent National Wetlands USFWS, national Composite of multiple data Cowardin et al. 1979 USFWS 2010; www. Inventory (NWI) and aerial image sources, fws.gov/wetlands 1970s to 2000s National Gap USGS, national Southeast Gap Analysis NatureServe 2007, gapanalysis.usgs.gov/ Analysis Program Project, 1999–2001 FGDC 2008 (GAP) Southeast Gap USGS and North Landsat ETM+ and DEM NatureServe 2007, www.basic.ncsu.edu/ Analysis Project Carolina State models used to model FGDC 2008 segap/index.html University, vegetation classes, 1999–2001 southeastern U.S. Wetland Status and USFWS, national Remote imagery and Cowardin et al. 1979 Dahl 2005, 2011; www. Trends randomized sample plots, 2009 fws.gov/wetlands/ Status-and-Trends/ index.html Coastal Change NOAA, national Landsat 5 TM satellite Dobson et al. 1995 coast.noaa.gov/ Analysis Program coastline imagery, 2010 ccapftp/#/ (C-CAP) 2003 Florida FWC, Florida Landsat ETM+ satellite Gilbert and Stys 2004 Stys et al. 2004, Kautz Vegetation and Land imagery, 2003 et al. 2007; ocean. Cover floridamarine.org/ mrgis/ Florida Water NWFWMD Color infrared or true color FDOT 1999 www.fgdl.org/ Management aerial photography, 2012–2013 metadataexplorer/ Districts (WMD) explorer.jsp Land Use Land Cover (LULC) maps SRWMD Color infrared or true color FDOT 1999 www.srwmd. aerial photography, 2010–2011 state.fl.us/index. aspx?NID=319 SWFWMD Color infrared aerial FDOT 1999 www.swfwmd.state. photography, 2011 fl.us/data/gis/ SFWMD Composite of multiple data FDOT 1999, SFWMD my.sfwmd. sources (see SFWMD 2005 2009 gov/gisapps/ for full listing), 2008–2009 sfwmdxwebdc/ (limited extent available for 2011–2013) SJRWMD Color infrared aerial FDOT 1999, SJRWMD www.sjrwmd.com/ photography, 2009 2009 gisdevelopment/docs/ themes.html FWC compilation of FWC, Florida Compilation of WMD data, FDOT 1999 geodata.myfwc.com/ WMD mangroves 1999–2011 and salt marshes

Gulf of Mexico Data NOAA, Gulf of Mangrove data from FWC Mangrove data: FDOT gulfatlas.noaa.gov/ Atlas Mexico coast and all of compilation of WMD data, 1999, NWI data: Florida wetlands data from NWI, Cowardin et al. 1979 2000–2005 Cooperative Land FNAI and FWC, Compiled from FWC 2003 FNAI 1990, FDOT Knight et al. 2010; Cover (CLC) map Florida land cover (Stys et al. 2004), 1999, Gilbert and Stys www.fnai.org/ WMD, aerial photography, 2004, Kawula 2009 LandCover.cfm and local data collections, 2003–2011 Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 15

Figure 1.9. Water management districts in Florida.

National Land Cover Data were used (Vogelmann et al. Status and Trends program quantifies the extent of wet- 1998) as well as NatureServe’s more specific terrestrial lands in the conterminous United States through remote ecological classifications (NatureServe 2007). National sensing, randomized ground sampling, and statistical es- GAP data sets are a compilation of data from regional timates (Dahl 2006, 2011). The most recent analysis com- GAP projects; Florida was a component of the South- pares changes in wetland extent from 2004 through 2009 east Gap Analysis Project, which was a collaboration (Dahl 2011) and an older examination of wetlands from between North Carolina State University and the USGS 1985 to 1996 is specific to Florida (Dahl 2005). (www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap). The Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP), run The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 16 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors tion’s Office for Coastal Management, provides region- Table 1.4. Total acres (and hectares) of salt marsh and al land cover change information for the coastal United mangrove swamp in Florida. See Table 1.3 for details on States. Data are acquired via Landsat 5 TM satellite im- data sources. ages and classified according to a C-CAP classification Habitat Florida Water FWC 2003 Cooperative scheme (Dobson et al. 1995). For Florida, land cover and Management Florida Land Cover trend analysis data are available for 1996, 2001, 2006, and Districts LULC Vegetation and version 3.2 2010. C-CAP offers downloadable data sets (coast.noaa. maps Land Cover 385,000 4 47,40 0 378,690 gov/ccapftp/#/) and an online mapper (www.coast.noaa. Salt marsh gov/ccapatlas/) that provides county-specific maps and (155,800 ha) (181,060 ha) (153,250 ha) 606,040 588,320 571,750 analysis of changes in the extent of freshwater and salt- Mangrove water marshes. (245,260 ha) (225,940 ha) (231,380 ha) Scrub 6,520 - - mangrove (2,640 ha) Statewide and regional land cover data sets Keys tidal 8,520 - - rock barren (3,450 ha) FWC created land cover maps based upon Landsat TM 1985–1989 imagery (Kautz et al. 1993) and completed an updated version based on Landsat ETM+ 2003 imagery (Gilbert and Stys 2004, Stys et al. 2004). The similar data sets. Due to the diverse array of data sources, mul- methodology used to create the two maps enabled the tiple land classification systems were used (FNAI 1990, comparison and analysis of land use change between the FDOT 1999, Gilbert and Stys 2004). All classifications two time periods (Kautz et al. 2007). were crosswalked into the Florida Land Cover Classifi- The Florida water management districts periodical- cation System (Kawula 2009). ly complete their own assessments of land use and land cover (LULC) in their jurisdictions (Figure 1.9). Land Comparison of selected land cover data cover analysis is based on remote imagery, and classifications are based on FLUCCS (FDOT 1999) categories, Statewide assessments of total salt marsh and man- sometimes with slight modifications (SFWMD 2009, grove acreage vary among sources. Image types, resolu- SJRWMD 2009). Land cover mapping years vary among tion, classification schemes, minimum mapping units, districts (Figure 1.9). District LULC data are available on and interpretation methods vary among agencies, leading the district websites (Table 1.3). Compiled WMD maps to differences in overall acreage assessments. An example of mangrove and salt marsh extent from 1999 through of variability in statewide assessments of total acreage of 2011 are available at the FWC Marine Resources Geo- salt marshes and mangroves is shown in Table 1.4. Note graphic Information System (MRGIS) (ocean.floridam- some of this variability likely reflects different years of arine.org/mrgis). The WMD land cover maps are often mapping efforts. used as the basis for land cover maps generated by other Figures 1.10 and 1.11 demonstrate differences be- governmental agencies. tween selected land cover data sets. A small section of NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Data Atlas website (gulfat- coastal wetlands in northeast Tampa Bay (Figure 1.10) las.noaa.gov/) compiles data from other sources. The shows a high degree of similarity between polygon land data atlas includes an online mapping program that cover maps developed by the SWFWMD, the Cooper- enables the viewing of compiled WMD coastal wetland ative Land Cover program, and the National Wetlands data and NWI wetland land cover data. Inventory. In this region, the NWI category of persistent The Cooperative Land Cover Map (CLC) was de- estuarine intertidal emergent wetland directly corre- veloped as a collaboration between FNAI and FWC to sponds to salt marsh and estuarine intertidal wetlands support the goals of the Florida Comprehensive Wildlife with scrub–shrub broad-leaved evergreens directly cor- Conservation Strategy (FWC 2005, Knight et al. 2010). responds to mangroves. More patchy classifications are The CLC project compiled data from various sources evident in the raster classification schemes, particular- and integrated them using aerial photography and lo- ly in the maps created by the National Gap Analysis cal data collections. Data were obtained from the 2003 Program (GAP). Although GAP does have a salt marsh FWC land cover data set, Florida WMD LULC data, classification category, most of this area was classified as aerial photographs, and interviews with local experts other types of vegetation (Figure 1.10). (Knight et al. 2010). Each data set was assigned a con- Variability between these land cover classification fidence category to determine its ranking over other maps becomes more evident in a section of the Ten Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 17

Figure 1.10. Northeast Tampa Bay example of raster and polygon coastal wetland mapping data from various sources. See Table 1.3 for details on data sources.

Thousand Island region in Southwest Florida (Figure Monitoring in coastal wetlands 1.11). Maps generated by SFWMD and the Cooperative Land Cover Program are highly similar, since CLC maps Wetland monitoring is conducted intermittently utilize data generated by the water management districts throughout Florida through various in situ or remote sens- as one of their data sources (Knight et al. 2010). The Na- ing methods. Coastal wetland monitoring is typically com- tional Wetlands Inventory differentiates between scrub- pleted in areas that are protected, such as state or national shrub and forests of mangroves. Even when this differ- parks, or at sites of wetland mitigation or restoration proj- entiation is taken into account, however, the extent of ects (Figure 1.12). Rarely are these monitoring programs persistent estuarine intertidal emergent wetland is less long-term, generally due to insufficient funding or resourc- than that of salt marsh classified in the other maps. The es (Fancy and Bennetts 2012). The minimum allotted time raster 2003 FWC Florida Vegetation and Land Cover is of monitoring for restoration or mitigation sites is typically again more fragmented yet presents similar distributions 3–5 years, after which monitoring is discontinued because of salt marshes and mangroves, while the National Gap regulatory criteria have been met or funding is no longer Analysis Program classifies much of the region as fresh- available (Thayer et al. 2003, Lewis 2004, Lewis 2005, Lewis water marshes. and Brown 2014). Although long-term funding is difficult to secure for prolonged monitoring projects, monitoring 18 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 1.11. Ten Thousand Islands example of raster and polygon coastal wetland mapping data from various sources. See Table 1.3 for details on data sources. over long time scales is increasingly important due to regional uncertainties of how substrate accretion and vegetative growth will respond to sea-level rise, altered freshwater hydrology, and other disturbances. While periodic land cover mapping programs can document changes in habitat and land cover, more subtle, species-specific changes in vegetation coverage within each habitat are best captured by on-the-ground monitoring. Ecological monitoring is also critical in identifying impacts of disturbances, climate change, and altered hydrologic patterns on ecosystem services provided by coastal wetlands. The protocols used to monitor wetlands differ depending on specific project goals, management questions, and type of wetland. Likewise, methods for monitoring restored or created wetlands can differ between local, Figure 1.12. A new salt marsh restoration project in state, and federal agencies and nongovernmental orga- Tampa Bay. nizations. These methodologies also differ greatly from Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 19

Table 1.5. Examples of monitoring procedures used for coastal wetlands in Florida. Name Association, Region Focus Reference Wetland Assessment SFWMD and Tampa Bay Water Monitoring isolated wetlands for SFWMD and TBW Procedure (WAP) (TBW), Florida management considerations 2005 Wetland Rapid Assessment SFWMD, Florida Rating index for monitoring temporal Miller and Procedure (WRAP) changes in altered wetlands Gunsalus 1997 Monitoring and Assessment Comprehensive Everglades MAP is used as a tool to assess CERP CERP 2004 Plan (MAP) Restoration Plan (CERP), South Florida Uniform Mitigation Florida Department of Methods to assess mitigated habitats in FDEP 2012 Assessment Method Environmental Protection Florida (UMAM) (FDEP), Florida South Florida/Caribbean National Park Service (NPS) Monitor vital signs of national park Patterson et al. Network (SFCN) Vital Signs SFCN, South Florida ecosystems in SFCN, including coastal 2008 Monitoring Plan wetlands Vital Signs Monitoring in the NPS SECN I&M, Northeast Monitor vital signs of national park DeVivo et al. 2008 Southeast Coast Inventory & Florida ecosystems in SECN, including coastal Monitoring Network (SECN wetlands I&M) Nutrient Criteria Technical U.S. Environmental Protection Assessing nutrient status and USEPA 2008 Guidance Manual: Wetlands Agency (EPA), national developing nutrient criteria for wetlands Hydrogeomorphic U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Evaluates wetland functionality and USACE 2010 Methodology (HGM) EPA, Federal Highway predicts impacts of future changes Administration, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, national NERRS System-Wide National Estuarine Research Long-term estuarine and coastal Moore 2013 Monitoring Program Reserve System (NERRS), wetland vegetation monitoring (SWMP) Vegetation national, with 3 reserves in Monitoring Protocol Florida Coastal Blue Carbon The Blue Carbon Initiative, Methods to assess carbon stocks and Howard et al. 2014 international emissions of coastal wetlands and seagrass Ecological Mangrove Mangrove Restoration, Practical international guide for Lewis and Brown Rehabilitation: A field international mangrove rehabilitation and 2014 manual for practitioners monitoring Methods for Studying UNESCO Scientific Committee Field methods to quantify mangrove Cintron and Mangrove Structure on Ocean Research, international structure Novelli 1984 Remote sensing procedures Varied Use of satellite data, aerial photographs, Kasischke and (general) and LiDAR to monitor wetlands Bourgeau-Chavez 1997, Ozesmi and Bauer 2002, Dahl 2006, Klemas 2011 those used in long-term monitoring, which seeks to deter- easily integrated into GIS software, are available for large mine long-term trends and responses to natural and an- areas, and supply coverage for annual monitoring for a thropogenic changes to the environment. A list of selected relatively low cost (Ozesmi and Bauer 2002). For detailed monitoring protocols used in Florida is provided in Table analysis of wetlands, however, aerial photography is pre- 1.5. For a more thorough review of wetland monitoring ferred because it is easier to differentiate the spectral signa- and sampling methods, see Fennessy et al. (2004), Thayer tures of various habitats (Ozesmi and Bauer 2002). Remote et al. (2005), or Haering and Galbraith (2010). sensing techniques and methodology vary widely depend- Remote sensing can also be used to inventory and mon- ing on the technology used, research questions, and habitat itor wetlands and provides the advantage of wide coverage variability (Kasischke and Bourgeau-Chavez 1997, Ozesmi at lower cost than in situ sampling. Digital satellite data are and Bauer 2002, Dahl 2006, Klemas 2011). 20 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Long-term monitoring of Florida coastal wetlands: examples of two methodologies 1. THE GUANA TOLOMATO MATANZAS NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE NIKKI DIX, Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

The monitoring methods of the Guana Tolomato National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTMNERR) are provided here as an example of an extensive, long- term monitoring program for coastal wetlands. The GTMNERR’s primary monitoring goal is to improve understanding of the ecological characteristics of the dynamic community and to discern the impacts of local and global changes on the estuarine ecosystem. Fol- lowing the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) protocols for biological monitoring (Moore 2013), specific objectives are to: 1. Establish permanent emergent intertidal vegetation monitoring sites throughout the estuary spanning the entire north–south gradient of the reserve. 2. Characterize patterns in vegetation species composition, abundance, and cover at multiple temporal and Figure 1.13. Locations of the six emergent-vegetation spatial scales. monitoring sites. At Moses Creek (06) and Pellicer Creek 3. Determine the influence of environmental characteris- (46) transects extend to the terrestrial transition zone. tics on vegetation patterns. 4. Determine the impact of large-scale environmental in each of the six sites, three replicate stations were es- changes (e.g., climate change, sea-level rise) on the tablished within a 70-m buffer. Because southeastern U.S. emergent intertidal vegetation community. low marshes are easily disturbed by trampling (Turner 1987), permanent platforms were constructed to mini- mize foot traffic (Figure 1.14). Within each site, three rep- Emergent marsh vegetation monitoring licate boardwalk systems were constructed, each consist- The GTMNERR’s emergent intertidal vegetation ing of two boardwalks, one approximately 9 m long and monitoring protocol is a combination of the NERRS Bio- one approximately 3 m long (both oriented perpendicular logical Monitoring protocols (Moore 2013), the National to the marsh edge), which are connected during sampling Park Service Southeast Coastal Network (SECN) pro- with a removable cross-piece. Each station consists of five tocols (Asper and Curtis 2013a, Curtis et al. 2013), and permanent 1-m2 vegetation plots marked with PVC at op- the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Coastal posite corners. Resource Division protocol (Folse and West 2004). The At two of the sites (Moses Creek [06] and Pellicer SECN protocol was developed in collaboration with Creek [46]), three replicate transects were extended from NERRS scientists to ensure monitoring compatibility the boardwalks to the terrestrial transition zone. Ten in salt marsh communities throughout the southeastern permanent 1-m2 vegetation plots were marked with PVC U.S. Atlantic coast. Sites were selected using a spatially on each replicate transect. Plots were evenly distributed balanced random-sample design developed by the SECN beginning at 10 m from the shoreline at 10-m (Moses (Byrne 2012). Creek) or 30-m (Pellicer Creek) intervals. After examination of potential sampling sites, six In each vegetation plot, maximum canopy height permanent emergent transition zone sampling sites were is determined by averaging the height of the five tallest chosen that met the selection criteria (Figure 1.13). With- individuals of the dominant species. Percent cover is de- Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 21

Figure 1.14. Schematic, left, of emergent vegetation platform and emergent platforms, right, located at Moses Creek (06) as seen from aerial imagery. Figure credit: GTMNERR termined by visual estimates (in 5% increments) in the was done monthly throughout 2014 to determine field as well as by the acquisition of close-to-earth na- peak growing season. Sampling has continued annu- dir (downward facing) images processed in SamplePoint ally, during peak growing season. The intention is to software (Booth et al. 2006). A lightweight collapsible sample salt marsh sites for at least 50 years. Unfortu- camera stand (2 m high with a 1- × 1-m base) fabricated nately, shore-to-upland transect monitoring behind the to the specifications outlined by Booth et al. (2004) and boardwalks resulted in degradation to the marsh from Curtis (2013) is used to acquire images in the field using trampling. Therefore, ground-based shore-to-upland a digital SLR camera with a remote trigger (Figure 1.15). transect monitoring will be postponed until a solution The nadir images are cropped with Adobe Photoshop (and necessary funds) for sampling without damaging Elements 9 to the inside corners of the camera stand the marsh can be found. base for a 1-m2 photo plot (Figure 1.16). Images are imported into SamplePoint, in which 100 randomly generated pixels are classified to the species level by a biologist. More information on SamplePoint and the image classification process can be found at www.samplepoint.org/SamplePointTutori- al.pdf. For species with cover less than 5%, a cover of 1% is assigned in the field. If a species is missed in the field but identified by SamplePoint, or vice versa, a cover of 1% is assigned in the laboratory. Salt marsh platforms were installed in 2011, and initial measurements were conducted in 2012. Due to a lack of detailed Figure 1.15. Assembled lightweight camera stand for close-to- phenological information of salt marsh earth remote sensing (left) and acquisition of nadir images (right). vegetation in the GTMNERR, sampling Photo credit: GTMNERR 22 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 1.16. Vegetation plot images dominated by, from left, Spartina alterniflora, Batis maritima, and Juncus roemerianus, cropped and prepared for processing in SamplePoint. Photo credit: GTMNERR

Beginning in June 2013, concurrently with initial SET measurements, nine accretion/erosion plots per site were established using feldspar horizons (Asper and Curtis 2013b). Feldspar horizons were established by sprinkling white feldspar clay on the wetland surface, where it serves as a visible white marker horizon for cryogenic cores that are taken annually from the date of installation to assess sediment accretion (Cahoon et al. 1996).

GTMNERR mangrove monitoring Following Moore (2013), the GTMNERR has identified two sites for mangrove monitoring, one on the Guana Peninsula at the northernmost extent of Figure 1.17. Biologist Jason Lynn lowers the pins of the range of A. germinans and one near Matanzas In- a surface elevation table, or SET. Photo credit: let, where A. germinans is prevalent. Protocols are still GTMNERR under development, but initial monitoring efforts have been structured as follows. Each site has two replicate GTMNERR emergent marsh sediment transects consisting of 5 10- × 10-m whole plots (100 m2) distributed evenly along the transect with five 1-m2 elevation monitoring subplots in each whole plot (total of 25 1-m2 subplots on At each of the 18 emergent marsh vegetation monitor- each transect) (Figure 1.18). ing stations, a deep-rod surface elevation table (SET) was Mangrove community dynamics are examined at three installed roughly 6 m from the subtidal creek between the scales (whole plot, subplot, and individual tree), with spe- two platforms (Figure 1.17; Cahoon et al. 2002a, 2002b). cific metrics identified for each level. Together, these mul- SETs were installed in 2011, but initial measurements tiscale metrics provide comprehensive information on the were delayed until 2013. Beginning in January 2014, SET scrub or shrub mangrove community while minimizing monitoring was conducted monthly for one year, concur- plot disturbance. Specific metrics are described for each rently with salt marsh vegetation monitoring. level in Moore (2013) as follows: Sediment elevation is measured along the arm of the SET by lowering nine pins (Figure 1.17) to the marsh sur- • Whole plot: General characteristics of each of five face and measuring the distance from the arm to the top whole plots along the transect are measured includ- of the pin. Pin measurements are taken in all four cardinal ing percent cover (mangrove spp. vs. other) and soil directions from rod for a total of 36 pin measurements at pore-water salinity and temperature (both measured at each SET station. the time of collection in the field). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 23

Figure 1.18. Layout of whole plots and subplots along a transect. Figure credit: Moore 2013

• Subplot: For each subplot, percent cover (mangrove spp. vs. other) is measured. Mangroves are identified by species and stage (shoot = no branches; tree = has branches). Trunk diameter (mm; ~2 cm above the sediment) and canopy height (cm) are measured for each individual tree. Note: this is different from the standard measure of trunk diameter used for larger mangrove trees, which is diameter at breast height (DBH), measured 1.4 m above the ground surface (Cintron and Novelli 1984). • Individual trees: A subsample of up to 10 of the larg- Figure 1.19. Tampa Bay CCHA monitoring sites, est trees for each mangrove species in each whole plot shown as black stars (established in 2015) and red stars are tagged and the following measurements taken to (established in 2016). examine tree architecture (see Moore 2013 for further explanation): temporal scales within Florida NERR habitats. Long- 1. Canopy height (cm): distance from ground surface term monitoring of these sites will facilitate determina- to top of canopy tion of the impact of climate change and sea-level rise on 2. Trunk formation: single or multiple trunk abiotic parameters and emergent intertidal vegetation. 3. Trunk diameter (mm): diameter just above sediment (~2 cm); if multiple trunks, the largest trunk is measured 2. CRITICAL COASTAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT MONITORING IN TAMPA BAY 4. Clear height (cm): height from sediment to first branch LINDSAY CROSS, Tampa Bay Estuary Program 5. Canopy, wide axis (cm): canopy width at the widest Methods developed by Doug Robison (Environmental point Science Associates), Pamela Latham (Research Planning Inc.), Lindsay Cross, and David Loy (Atkins North 6. Canopy, narrow axis (cm): perpendicular to the America) wide axis, canopy width at the widest point 7. Canopy offset (cm): the horizontal distance between The Tampa Bay Estuary Program initiated a long- the trunk and the intersection of the wide and nar- term monitoring program in 2015 for coastal habitats row canopy axes as part of a larger effort to manage, restore, and protect habitats critical to the ecological function of the Tampa 8. Ground cover: Species present in the area under the Bay estuary (Sherwood and Greening 2012). The objec- tree canopy tive of the Critical Coastal Habitat Assessment (CCHA) The methods described above will enable study of is to “develop a long-term monitoring program to assess spatial patterns in vegetation at a variety of spatial and the status, trends, and ecological function of the mosaic 24 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 1.21. Location of transect at Upper Tampa Bay Park, including mangrove, salt marsh, salt barren, pond, and upland habitats.

Elevation and abiotic parameters

• Elevation: Permanent benchmarks were established at the landward and seaward extent of the transect. Eleva- tions were then surveyed along the entire transect at 5-ft (1.5-m) intervals following the FDEP standards for elevation surveys of beach profiles (FDEP 2014). Real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS technology was also evaluated as a survey technique. Figure 1.20. Stratified random sampling design with • Interstitial salinity: Pore water was collected with a random plots (blue circles) in each vegetation strata (not one-way hand pump from a freshly augured pit and to scale). Sampling design includes belt transect, line measured using a conductivity meter, specific gravity intercept, and individual sample plots. Yellow and black meter, or handheld refractometer. Care was taken to squares indicate soil core and Feldspar horizon (H) and ensure that pore water was collected at similar tidal piezometer (P) locations, respectively. stages across all monitoring sites. • Soils: Soil samples were collected at the same locations of critical coastal habitats to detect changes due to natu- as the vegetation samples and feldspar horizons and an- ral and indirect anthropogenic impacts including sea-level alyzed for total percent organic content and sediment rise and climate change, and improve future management grain size. of habitats.” This effort will be accomplished through • Feldspar horizons: Feldspar marker horizons were development of a long-term fixed transect program that placed within each vegetation zone within a 50- × 50- will characterize baseline (2015–2016) status and detect cm plot and at a thickness of approximately 0.25 inch changes in habitat and ecosystem function over time. (0.6 cm). Steel rebar was driven into the soil to mark Monitoring locations were initially established in 2015 at the corners of the feldspar plot. Accretion will be mon- five sites around the Tampa Bay watershed (Figure 1.19) itored by coring within the feldspar plot every 6–12 in protected areas with minimal disturbance that have a months. It is anticipated that four sampling events can full complement of emergent tidal wetland communities be conducted within each marker before replacement including mangrove, salt marsh, salt barrens, and coast- will be necessary due to washout in higher-energy areas al uplands. The CCHA is designed to be a long-term as- and bioturbation by fiddler crabs. sessment with monitoring occurring every 3–5 years in • Location markers: GPS coordinates were recorded in perpetuity. Transects include randomized quadrats for each vegetation zone and at transitions. Available aerial detailed species analysis as well as a belt transect that that photography (Figure 1.21), combined with photoint- enables verification with aerial photointerpretation and erpretation and ground truthing, was used to develop vegetation mapping. The sampling approach is outlined detailed GIS habitat maps of each transect site. in Figure 1.20. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 25

Vegetation monitoring

• Belt transect: A belt transect (red dashed outline, Figure 1.20) was established along the entire transect. Percent cover by community type (e.g., mangroves, salt marsh, salt barren, coastal upland) was recorded for each zone. • Quadrat sampling along belt transects: Basal percent cover of vegetation (the area occupied by the base of the plant) was recorded within 0.5- × 0.5-m quadrats along the entire permanent transect (solid black line, Figure 1.20). • Randomized quadrats: Plots 1-m2 (blue shaded circles, Figure 1.20) were randomly assigned in each habitat and transition zone based on XY coordinates derived from a random-point generator. Species and basal percent cover were recorded for all vegetation to provide measurements of density, frequency, and relative species dominance for each stratum (Figure 1.22). • Forest sampling: Within the mangrove zone, tree sampling data were collected using the Point-Centered Quarter method (PCQ, Cottam and Curtis 1956). In the PCQ method, the distance to the closest tree, species of that tree, and the DBH of that tree are determined within each of four directional quarters. Tree height for the closest tree in each quarter was also collected using either a clinometer (in areas of sparse tree coverage) or an extendable survey rod (in areas of dense tree coverage). Finally, an estimate of percent canopy coverage was obtained using a densitometer. Figure 1.22. Assessing percent cover of vegetation in salt Faunal monitoring marsh and mangrove portions of the transect. Photo: Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Faunal monitoring was conducted in each of the 1-m2 randomly selected plots. The number of periwinkle snails ( Littorina spp.) as well as fiddler crabs (Uca spp.) and their burrows were counted (Figure 1.23). In the forested zones, observed species of arboreal crabs were also recorded.

Phase 2 expansion of monitoring A second phase of the project was initiated in 2016 in partnership with TBEP and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. This phase implemented the same methods but incorporated four additional sites around the watershed, including some that have had hydrologic or other anthropogenic impacts, including restoration. This expanded the breadth of data acquired and may address whether habitats in disturbed sites react differently to sea-level rise than ar- Figure 1.23. Atlantic sand fiddler crab (Uca pugilator). eas with less impacts. These additional four study sites are Photo: Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 26 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 1.24. Regions of focus for the CHIMMP report chapters. distributed across western Tampa Bay (see Figure 1.19). In climate change and sea-level rise. Habitat mapping infor- addition, a multimedia training manual will be created that mation provides documentation of large-scale changes outlines, step-by-step, the methods and field and laboratory in land cover, while complementary in situ monitoring protocols used in the Tampa Bay project. This manual, and enables study of the fine-scale changes in species compo- the other project deliverables, can be used by other agencies sition and sediment characteristics of salt marshes, man- in Florida and elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico to imple- groves, and associated coastal habitats. ment similar long-term monitoring programs. Results of Numerous online monitoring resources are available, the CCHA will be used to inform future management and including portals of compiled monitoring data, statewide restoration of habitats in the Tampa Bay watershed, with and nationwide programs, and general monitoring re- the goal of improving long-term success of habitat acquisi- sources. These resources include: tion, restoration, and management. • Southeast Global Change Monitoring Portal my.usgs.gov/gcmp/ Monitoring resources • Southeast Coastal Water Quality Monitoring While the majority of coastal wetland monitoring Metadata Project Web Portal methodologies focus on monitoring restoration or miti- www.gcrc.uga.edu/wqmeta/ gation sites (Table 1.5), long-term studies provide valu- • Governors’ South Atlantic Alliance Coastal Wetlands able information on vegetative and substrate responses to Monitoring Report and Database Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 27

southatlanticalliance.org/ Works cited coastal-wetlands-monitoring-report-and-database/ Asper J, Curtis AC. 2013a. Salt marsh elevation • Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation monitoring. Southeast Coast Network Standard Collective Gulf Coast Vulnerability Assessment: Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.6. gulfcoastprairielcc.org/science/science-projects/ National Park Service. irmafiles.nps.gov/reference/ gulf-coast-vulnerability-assessment/ holding/501180, accessed July 2015. • Mangrove, Tidal Emergent Marsh, Barrier Islands, Asper J, Curtis T. 2013b. Measuring accretion with a and Oyster Reef section: gulfcoastprairielcc.org/ feldspar marker horizon. Southeast Coast Network media/28948/gcva_11162015_final-2.pdf Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP- 1.3.7. National Park Service. • Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Ball MC, Cochrane MJ, Rawson HM. 1997. Growth and Conservation Collective Surface Elevation water use of the mangroves Rhizophora apiculata and Table Inventory for the Northern Gulf R. stylosa in response to salinity and humidity under of Mexico: gcpolcc.databasin.org/ ambient and elevated concentrations of atmospheric datasets/6a71b8fb60224720b903c770b8a93929 CO2. Plant, Cell and Environment 20:1158–1166. • EPA National Wetland Condition Assessment: Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/ AC, Silliman BR. 2011. The value of estuarine and national-wetland-condition-assessment coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs • EPA Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment: www.epa. 81:169–193. gov/wetlands/wetlands-monitoring-and-assessment Batish DR, Singh HP. 1998. Role of allelopathy in regulating the understory vegetation of Casuarina • National Estuarine Research Reserve System equisetifolia. Pp. 317–323 in Sassa, K (ed). vegetation monitoring overview and data: cdmo. Environmental Forest Science. Proceedings of the baruch.sc.edu/get/vegetation_index.html IUFRO Division 8 Conference Environmental Forest • Restore America’s Estuaries Blue Carbon Resources: Science. Springer Science and Business Media, www.estuaries.org/bluecarbon-resources Dordrecht, Netherlands. • FDEP overview of the wetland and other surface water Blasco F, Gauquelin T, Rasolofoharinoro M, Denis J, regulatory and proprietary programs in Florida: www. Aizpuru M, Caldairou V. 1998. Recent advances in dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/docs/erp/overview.pdf mangrove studies using remote sensing data. Marine and Freshwater Research 49:287–296. • FDEP State of Florida Wetland Program Plan Booth DT, Cox SE, Berryman RD. 2006. Point sampling (program under way since 2013): www.epa.gov/sites/ digital imagery with “SamplePoint.” Environmental production/files/2015-10/documents/fl-wpp-2013. Monitoring and Assessment 123:97–108. pdf. Projects in this plan include the Florida Wetlands Booth DT, Cox SE, Louhaichi M, Johnson DE. 2004. Integrity Dataset: www.aswm.org/pdf_lib/mapping_ Technical note: lightweight camera stand for close-to- webinar/fl_wetland_integrity_dataset_humphreys_ earth remote sensing. Journal of Range Management mahjoor_091615.pdf 57:675–678. • Mangrove Restoration and Monitoring Resources: Boorman LA. 1999. Salt marshes: present functioning www.mangroverestoration.com/html/downloads.html and future change. Mangroves and Salt Marshes 3:227–241. Bowden WB. 1986. Gaseous nitrogen emissions from Region-specific chapters undisturbed terrestrial ecosystems: an assessment of The remainder of this report documents region-spe- their impacts on local and global nitrogen budgets. cific ecosystems, monitoring, and mapping programs Biogeochemistry 2:249–279. across Florida. The 12 CHIMMP regions are separat- Bulleri F, Chapman MG. 2010. The introduction of ed as shown in Figure 1.24. Each chapter includes a coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine general introduction to the region, location-specific environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:26–35. threats to salt marshes and mangroves, a summary of Byrne MW. 2012. Generating a spatially balanced selected mapping and monitoring programs, and rec- random sample with the RRQRR Tool in ArcGIS ommendations for future protection, management, and 9.1 and ArcGIS 9.3.1 and applying selection criteria monitoring. to select sampling locations. Southeast Coast Net 28 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

work Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/ and trends 1985 to 1996. U.S. Department of the SOP-1.1.1. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, irmafiles.nps.gov/reference/holding/501173, accessed D.C. www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Floridas- July 2015. Wetlands-An-Update-on-Status-and-Trends-1985- Cahoon DR, Lynch JC, Hensel P, Boumans R, Perez to-1996.pdf, accessed June 2015. BC, Segura B., Day JW Jr. 2002a. High precision Dahl TE. 2006. Remote sensing as a tool for monitoring measurement of wetland sediment elevation: I. wetland habitat change. In Aguirre-Bravo C, Pellicane Recent improvements to the sedimentation-erosion P, Bums DP, Draggan S (eds). Monitoring science table. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72:730–733. and technology symposium: unifying knowledge Cahoon DR, Lynch JC, Knaus RM. 1996. Improved for sustainability in the western hemisphere 2004 cryogenic coring device for sampling wetland soils. September 20–24; Denver, Colorado. Proceedings Journal of Sedimentary Research 66:1025–1027. RMRS-P-42CD. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cahoon DR, Lynch JC, Perez BC, Segura B, Holland Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, R, Stelly C, Stephenson G, Hensel P. 2002b. High Fort Collins, Colorado. www.fws.gov/wetlands/ precision measurement of wetland sediment Documents%5CRemote-Sensing-as-a-Tool-for- elevation: II. The rod surface elevation table. Journal Monitoring-Wetland-Habitat-Change.pdf, accessed of Sedimentary Research 72:734–739. June 2015. Cavanaugh KC, Kellner JR, Forde AJ, Gruner DS, Parker Dahl TE. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in the JD, Rodriguez W, Feller IC. 2014. Poleward expansion conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. of mangroves is a threshold response to decreased Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife frequency of extreme cold events. Proceedings of the Service, Washington, D.C. www.fws.gov/wetlands/ National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Documents/Status-and-Trends-of-Wetlands-in-the- America 111:723–727. Conterminous-United-States-2004-to-2009.pdf, Cebrian J. 2002. Variability and control of carbon accessed June 2015. consumption, export, and accumulation in marine DeVivo J, Wright C, Byrne M, Didonato E, Curtis T. communities. Limnology and Oceanography 2008. Vital signs monitoring in the southeast coast 47:11–22. inventory & monitoring network. Natural Resource Cintron G, Novelli YS. 1984. Methods for studying Report NPS/SECN/NRR-2008/061, Atlanta, Georgia. mangrove structure. Pp. 91–113 in Snedaker SC science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/SECN/assets/docs/ Snedaker JG (eds). The Mangrove Ecosystem: SECN_Vital_Signs_Monitoring_Plan.pdf, accessed Research Methods. UNESCO, Paris. September 2015. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 2004. Dobson JE, Bright EA, Ferguson RL, Field DW, Wood CERP monitoring and assessment plan. Part 1: LI, Hadded KD, Iredale H III, Jensen JR, Klemas VV, monitoring and supporting research. 141.232.10.32/ Orth RJ, Thomas JP. 1995. NOAA Coastal change pm/recover/recover_map.aspx, accessed June 2015. analysis program (C-CAP): guidance for regional Cottam G, Curtis JT. 1956. The use of distance measures implementation. NOAA Technical Report NMFS in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37:451–460. 123, Seattle, Washington. spo.nwr.noaa.gov/tr123. Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, Laroe ET. pdf, accessed October 2015. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater Dyer KR. 1995. Sediment transport processes habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife in estuaries. Pp. 423–449 in Perillo ME (ed). Service FWS/OBS-79/31, Jamestown, North Dakota. Geomorphology and sedimentology of estuaries. www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Classification- Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands. of-Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats-of-the-United- Elmer WH, Lamondia JA, Caruso FL. 2012. Association States.pdf, accessed June 2015. between Fusarium spp. on Spartina alterniflora and Curtis AJ, Asper S, Eastman S, Baron L. 2013. dieback sites in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Photoplot-based monitoring of salt marsh vegetation. Estuaries and Coasts 35:436–444. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Fancy SG, Bennetts SG. 2012. Institutionalizing an Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.9. National Park effective long-term monitoring program in the Service. irmafiles.nps.gov/reference/holding/510298, U.S. National Park Service. Pp. 481–497 in Gitzen accessed July 2015. RA, Millspaugh JJ, Cooper AB, and Light DS Dahl TE. 2005. Florida’s wetlands: an update on status (eds). Design and analysis of long-term ecological Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 29

monitoring studies. Cambridge University Press, Natural Resource’s Coastal Restoration Division: Cambridge, UK. science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/ methods for data collection, quality assurance/ docs/NPS_Institutionalizing_Monitoring_Chpt22. quality control, storage, and products. Louisiana pdf, accessed June 2015. Department of Natural Resources, Baton Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2008. National Rouge, Louisiana. www.clu-in.org/download/ vegetation classification standard, version 2. contaminantfocus/sediments/Louisiana-SOP- FGDC Document number FGDC-STD-005-2008, Manual.pdf, accessed June 2015. Reston, Virginia. www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/ Fry JA, Xian G, Jin S, Dewitz J, Homer CG, Yang L, FGDC-standards-projects/vegetation/NVCS_V2_ Barnes CA, Herold ND, Wickham JD. 2011. National FINAL_2008-02.pdf, accessed June 2015. land cover database for the conterminous United Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME. 2004. States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Review of rapid methods for assessing wetland Sensing 77:859–864. conditions. U.S. Environmental Protection Gao J. 1998. A hybrid method toward accurate mapping Agency EPA/620/R-04/009. National Health and of mangroves in a marginal habitat from SPOT Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office multispectral data. International Journal of Remote of Research and Development, Research Triangle Sensing 19:1887–1899. Park, North Carolina. Geissler N, Schnetter R, Schnetter M. 2002. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2012. The pneumathodes of Laguncularia racemosa: little Uniform mitigation assessment method (UMAM). known rootlets of surprising structure, and notes on www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/mitigation/ a new fluorescent dye for lipophilic substances. Plant umam/index.htm, accessed June 2015. Biology 4:729–739. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2014. Gilbert T, Stys B. 2004. Descriptions of vegetation and Monitoring standards for beach erosion control land cover types mapped using Landsat imagery. projects. www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, pdf/PhysicalMonitoringStandards.pdf, accessed Tallahassee. www.myfwc.com/media/1205694/ October 2015. fwcveg_descriptions03.pdf, accessed June 2015. Florida Department of Transportation. 1985. Florida Giri CP, Long J. 2014. Mangrove reemergence in land use, cover and forms classification system. State the northernmost range limit of eastern Florida. Topographic Bureau, Thematic mapping section Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences procedure No. 550-010-00101. (Letter) 111:E1447–E1448. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Haering KC, Galbraith JM. 2010. Literature review Florida land use, cover and forms classification for development of Maryland wetland monitoring system, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, strategy: review of evaluation methods. Prepared Thematic Mapping Section. www.dot.state. for the Maryland Department of the Environment fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/ Wetland and Waterways Program. www.mde.state. fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed June 2015. md.us/programs/Water/WetlandsandWaterways/ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. DocumentsandInformation/Documents/www.mde. 2005. Florida’s wildlife legacy initiative: state.md.us/assets/document/WetlandsWaterways/ comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy, Review_of_Evaluation_Methods_3-30-10%20 planning for the future for Florida’s wildlife, FINAL.pdf, accessed June 2015. Tallahassee. myfwc.com/media/134715/Legacy_ Hammer DA. 1989. Constructed wetlands for Strategy.pdf, accessed June 2015. wastewater treatment: municipal, industrial, and Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1990. Guide to the agricultural. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. natural communities of Florida. www.fnai.org/PDF/ Hefner SR. 1986. Wetlands of Florida, 1950s to 1970s. Natural_Communities_Guide.PDF, accessed June Pp. 23–31 in Estevez ED, Miller J, Morris J, Hamman 2015. R (eds). Managing cumulative effects in Florida Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2010. Guide to the wetlands. New College Environmental Studies natural communities of Florida. www.fnai.org/pdf/ Program Publication No. 37. Omnipress, Madison, aa_introduction.pdf, accessed June 2015. Wisconsin. Folse TM, West JL. 2004. A standard operating proce Howard J, Hoyt S, Isensee K, Pidgeon E, Telszewski dures manual for the Louisiana Department of M (eds). 2014. Coastal blue carbon: methods for 30 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

assessing carbon stocks and emissions factors in Project 08009. www.fnai.org/PDF/Cooperative_ mangroves, tidal salt marshes, and seagrass meadows. Land_Cover_Map_Final_Report_20101004.pdf, Conservation International, Intergovernmental accessed June 2015. Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Krauss KW, Lovelock CE, McKee KL, Lopez-Hoffman International Union for Conservation of Nature, J, Ewe SML, Sousa WP. 2008. Environmental drivers Arlington, Virginia. www.cifor.org/publications/ in mangrove establishment and early development: a pdf_files/Books/BMurdiyarso1401.pdf, accessed June review. Aquatic Botany 89:105–127. 2015. Krauss KW, From AS, Doyle TW, Doyl TJ, Barry MJ. Kasischke ES, Bourgeau-Chavez LL. 1997. Monitoring 2011. Sea-level rise and landscape change influence south Florida wetlands using ERS-1 SAR imagery. mangrove encroachment onto marsh in the Ten Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing Thousand Islands region of Florida, USA. Journal of 63:281–291. Coastal Conservation 15:629–638. Kathiresan K. 2012. Importance of mangrove ecosystem. Kuenzer C, Bluemel A, Gebhardt S., Tuan Vo Q, Dech International Journal of Marine Science 2:70–89. S. 2011. Remote sensing of mangrove ecosystems: a Kathiresan K, Bingham BL. 2001. Biology of mangroves review. Remote Sensing 3:878–928. and mangrove ecosystems. Advances in Marine Lee SY, Dunn RJK, Young RA, Connolly RM, Dale Biology 40:81–251. PER, Dehayr R, Lemckert CJ, McKinnon S, Powell B, Kautz R, Stys B, Kawula R. 2007. Florida vegetation Teasdale PR, Welsh DT. 2006. Impact of urbanization 2003 and land use change between 1985–89 and 2003. on coastal wetland structure and function. Austral Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences 1:12–23. Ecology 31:149–163. Kautz RS, Gilbert DT, Mauldin GM. 1993. Vegetative Lewis RR III. 2004. Time zero plus 60 months report for cover in Florida based on 1985–1989 Landsat the Cross Bayou mangrove restoration site, Pinellas Thematic Mapper imagery. Florida Scientist County, Florida. Prepared for the Cross Bayou Project 56:135–154. Review Group by Lewis Environmental Services Inc., Kawula R. 2009. Florida land cover classification system, Salt Springs, Florida. www.mangroverestoration.com/ final report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation pdfs/CrossBayouT60monitoringreport.pdf, accessed Commission. myfwc.com/media/1205712/SWG%20 June 2015. T-13%20Final%20Rpt_0118.pdf, accessed June 2015. Lewis RR III. 2005. Ecological engineering for successful Kawula R. 2014. Florida land cover classification system, management and restoration of mangrove forests. final report, revised. Florida Fish and Wildlife Ecological Engineering 24:403–418. Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. myfwc.com/ Lewis RR III, Brown B. 2014. Ecological mangrove media/2815396/LandCoverClassification-2014.pdf, rehabilitation: a field manual for practitioners. www. accessed September 2016 mangroverestoration.com/pdfs/Final%20PDF%20 King SE, Lester JN. 1995. The value of salt marsh as a sea -%20Whole%20EMR%20Manual.pdf, accessed defense. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30:180–189. June 2015. Kirwan ML, Megonigal JP. 2013. Tidal wetland stability Lewis RR III, Gilmore RG Jr, Crewz DW, Odum WE. in the face of human impacts and sea-level rise. 1985. Mangrove habitat and fishery resources of Nature 504:53–60. Florida. Pp. 281-336 in Seaman W Jr. (ed). Florida Klemas V. 2011. Remote sensing of wetlands: case Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources. Florida studies comparing practical techniques. Journal of Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Kissimmee. Coastal Research 27:418–427. Lyon JG. 2001. Wetland landscape characterization: GIS, Klemas VV, Dobson JE, Ferguson RL, Haddad KD. remote sensing, and image analysis. Sleeping Bear 1993. A coastal land-cover classification system to the Press, Chelsea, Michigan. NOAA Coastwatch Change Analysis Project. Journal McCarthy MJ, Merton EJ, Muller-Karger FE. 2015. of Coastal Research 9:862–872. Improved coastal wetland mapping using very-high Knight A, Hipes D, Nesmith K, Gulledge K, Jenkins 2-meter spatial resolution imagery. International A, Elam C, Diamond P, Oetting J, Newberry A. Journal of Applied Earth Observation and 2010. Development of a cooperative land cover map: Geoinformation 40:11–18. Final Report 15 July 2010. Florida Natural Areas McIvor AL, Spencer T, Möller, Spalding M. 2012. Storm Inventory and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation surge reduction by mangroves. Natural coastal Commission. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative protection series: Report 2. Cambridge coastal Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 31

research unit working paper 41. Published by The Odum WE, McIvor CC, Smith TJ III. 1982. The ecology Nature Conservancy and Wetlands International. of the mangroves of south Florida: a community Natural Coastal Protection Series ISSN 2050-7941. profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/ Biological Services. US FWS/OBS 81:24. www.nwrc. Marine/crr/library/Documents/storm-surge- usgs.gov/techrpt/81-24.pdf, accessed June 2015. reduction-by-mangroves-report.pdf, accessed June Osland MJ, Enwright N, Day RH, Doyle TW. 2013. 2015. Winter climate change and coastal wetland McLeod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, foundation species: salt marshes vs. mangrove forests Duarte CM, Lovelock CE, Schlesinger WH, Silliman in the southeastern United States. Global Change BR. 2011. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an Biology 19:1482–1494. improved understanding of the role of vegetated Ozesmi SL, Bauer ME. 2002. Satellite remote sensing

coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in of wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management Ecology and the Environment 9:552–560. 10:381–402. Medeiros S, Hagen S, Weishampel J, Angelo J. 2015. Patterson ME, Atkinson AJ, Witcher BD, Whelan KRT, Adjusting LIDAR-derived digital terrain models in Miller WJ, Waara RJ, Patterson JM, Ruttenberg BI, coastal marshes based on estimated aboveground Davis AD, Urgelles R, Shamblin RB. 2008. South biomass density. Remote Sensing 7:3507–3525. Florida/Caribbean Network Vital Signs Monitoring Miller RE, Gunsalus BE. 1997. Wetland Rapid Plan. National Park Service Natural Resource Report Assessment Procedure (WRAP). South Florida Water NPS/SFCN/NRR-2008/063. science.nature.nps.gov/ Management District Technical Publication Reg-001. im/units/SFCN/, accessed June 2015. www.swflregionalvision.com/content/WQFAM/ Pethick JS. 1992. Saltmarsh geomorphology. Pp. WRAP99.pdf, accessed June 2015. 41-62 in Allen JRL, Pye K (eds). Saltmarshes: Montague CJ, Odum HT. 1997. Introduction: The morphodynamics, conservation and engineering intertidal marshes of Florida’s Gulf Coast. Pp. significance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1–33 in Coultas CL, Hsieh YP (eds). Ecology and UK. management of tidal marshes: a model from the Gulf Russel M, Greening H. 2015. Estimating benefits in a of Mexico. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. recovering estuary: Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries and Montague CJ, Wiegert RG. 1990. Salt marshes. Pp. Coasts 38:S9–S18. 481–516 in Myers RL, Ewel JJ (eds). Ecosystems of Rutchey K, Schall TN, Doren RF, Atkinson A, Ross MS, Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Jones DT, Madden M, Vilchek L, Bradley KA, Snyder Florida. JR, Burch JN, Pernas T, Witcher B, Pyne M, White Moore K. 2013. NERRS SMP vegetation monitoring R, Smith TJ III, Sadle J, Smith CS, Patterson ME, protocol: long-term monitoring of estuarine Gann GD. 2006. Vegetation classification for south vegetation communities. National Estuarine Florida natural areas. U.S. Geological Survey Open- Research Reserve System, Technical Report. file Report 2006-1240. sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ Gloucester Point, Virginia. gtmnerr.org/documents/ ofr/2006-1240/OFR_2006_1240.pdf, accessed June Research_Publications/NERRS_Vegetation_ 2015. Monitoring_2013-09-06.pdf, accessed June 2015. Saintilan N, Rogers K, McKee KL. 2009. Salt marsh– National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. mangrove interactions in Australasia and the 2014. Sea level trends. tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ Americas. Pp. 855–883 in Perillo GME, Wolanski E, sltrends/sltrends.html, accessed June 2015. Cahoon DR, Brinson MM (eds). Coastal wetlands: NatureServe. 2007. International ecological classification an integrated ecosystem approach. Elsevier, standard: terrestrial ecological classifications. Amsterdam, Netherlands. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, Virginia. Scholander PF. 1968. How mangroves desalinate water. explorer.natureserve.org/classeco.htm, accessed June Physiologia Plantarum 21:251–261. 2015. Scholander PF, Vandam L, Scholander SI. 1955. Gas Nelson G. 2011. The trees of Florida: a reference and exchange in the roots of mangroves. American field guide, second edition. Pineapple Press, Sarasota. Journal of Botany 42:92–98. Odum WE, McIvor CC. 1990. Mangroves. Pp. 517–548 Scott C. 2004. Endangered and threatened animals of in Myers RL, Ewel JJ (eds). Ecosystems of Florida. Florida and their habitats. University of Texas Press, University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Austin. 32 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Sherwood E, Greening H. 2012. Critical coastal the red mangrove prop root habitat by fishes in South habitat vulnerability assessment for the Tampa Bay Florida. Marine Ecology Progress Series 35:25–38. estuary: projected changes to habitats due to sea Thayer GW, McTigue TA, Bellmer RJ, Burrows FM, level rise and climate change. Tampa Bay Estuary Merkey DH, Nickens AD, Lozano SJ, Gayaldo Program Technical Publication 03–12, St. Petersburg, PF, Polmateer PJ, Pinit PT. 2003. Science-based Florida. www.tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_ restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Vol. 1: A PUBS/2012/TBEP_03_12_Updated_Vulnerability_ framework for monitoring plans under the Estuaries Assessment_082012.pdf, accessed October 2015. and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160- Silliman BR, van de Koppel J, Bertness MD, Stanton LE, 457). Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Mendelssohn IA. 2005. Drought, snails, and large- Series 23(1). National Oceanic and Atmospheric scale die-off of southern U.S. salt marshes. Science Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. www. 310:1803–1806. era.noaa.gov/pdfs/Sci-based%20Restoration%20 Snedaker S. 1993. Impact on mangroves. Pp. 282–305 in Monitoring-%20Vol%201.pdf, accessed June 2015. Maul GA (ed). Climatic change in the Intra-Americas Thayer GW, McTigue TA, Salz RJ, Merkey DH, Sea. Edward Arnold, London. Burrows FM, Gayaldo PF. 2005. Science-based South Florida Water Management District. 2005. The restoration monitoring of coastal habitats. Vol. 2: South Florida Water Management Model. Version Tools for monitoring coastal habitats. National 5.5: final peer review report. www.sfwmd.gov/ Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. www. sites/default/files/documents/final_peer_review_ era.noaa.gov/pdfs/Sci-based%20Restoration%20 report_1dec05.pdf, accessed June 2015. Monitoring-%20Vol%202.pdf, accessed June 2015. South Florida Water Management District. 2009. 2009 Turner MG. 1987. Effects of grazing by feral horses: SFWMD photointerpretation key. my.sfwmd.gov/ clipping, trampling, and burning on a Georgia salt portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_ marsh. Estuaries 10:54–60. pdf/2009_pi-key.pdf, accessed June 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Hydrogeomorphic South Florida Water Management District and Tampa approach for assessing wetlands functions. https:// Bay Water. 2005. Wetland assessment procedures wetlands.el.erdc.dren.mil/guidebooks.cfm, accessed (WAP) instruction manual for isolated wetlands. June 2015. www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/download/site_file_sets/9/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Nutrient wap_manual2005.pdf, accessed June 2015. criteria technical guidance manual: wetlands. www. St. Johns River Water Management District. 2009. epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/criteria-development- 2009 Land cover and land use classification system guidance-wetlands#guidance, accessed June 2015. photointerpretation key. Patterson K, Hong DX, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Coastal salt marsh. Geonex Corp. ftp://secure.sjrwmd.com/disk6b/ Pp. 553–595 in South Florida Multi-species Recovery lcover_luse/lcover2009/lu2009_PI_Key/keylist.html, Plan. www.fws.gov/verobeach/ListedSpeciesMSRP. accessed June 2015. html, accessed June 2015. Stevens PW, Fox SL, Montague CL. 2006. The interplay U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Wetlands mapper between mangroves and saltmarshes at the transition documentation and instructions manual. U.S. between temperate and subtropical climate in Florida. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Habitat and Wetlands Ecology and Management 14:435–444. Resource Conservation Branch of Resource and Stout JP. 1984. The ecology of irregularly flooded salt Mapping Support, Madison, Wisconsin. www. marshes of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico: a fws.gov/wetlands/documents/Wetlands-Mapper- community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Documentation-Manual.pdf, accessed June 2015. Biological Report 85(7.1). www.nwrc.usgs.gov/ Verified Carbon Standard. 2015. Methodology for tidal techrpt/85-7-1.pdf, accessed April 2015. wetland and seagrass restoration. VCS Methodology Stys B, Kautz R, Reed D, Kertis M, Kawula R, Keller VM0033, version 1.0. Restore America’s Estuaries C, Davis A. 2004. Florida vegetation and land and Silvestrum. database.v-c-s.org/sites/vcs. cover data derived from 2003 Landsat ETM+ benfredaconsulting.com/files/VM0033%20Tidal%20 Imagery. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Wetland%20and%20Seagrass%20Restoration%20 Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. www.myfwc.com/ v1.0%2020%20NOV%202015_0.pdf, accessed media/1205703/methods.pdf, accessed June 2015. December 2015. Thayer GW, Colby DR, Hettler WF. 1987. Utilization of Vogelmann JE, Sohl TL, Campbell PV, Shaw DM. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 33

1998. Regional land cover characterization using Landsat thematic mapper data and ancillary data sources. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51:415–428. Wang L, Silvan-Cardenas JL, Sousa WP. 2008. Neural network classification of mangrove species from multi-seasonal Ikonos imagery. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 74:921–927. Wiegert RG, Freeman BJ. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the southeast Atlantic Coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85: 7.29, Athens Georgia. www.nwrc.usgs.gov/techrpt/85-7-29. pdf, accessed June 2015. Williams AA, Eastman SF, Eash-Loucks WE, Kimball MW, Lehmann ML, Parker JD. 2014. Record northernmost endemic mangroves on the United States Atlantic coast with a note on latitudinal migration. Southeastern Naturalist 13:56–63.

Contacts Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva- tion Commission, [email protected] Ryan Moyer, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, [email protected] 34 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 2 Northwest Florida

Kim Wren, Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve Caitlin Snyder, Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve Maria Merrill, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Katie Konchar, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Beth Fugate, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Shelly Marshall, Marine Resources Division, Escambia County Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the region groundsel shrubs) (Edmiston 2008, ANERR 2014). Inland oligohaline and freshwater marshes are dominated by The numerous bays, peninsulas, barrier islands, and Scirpus spp. (bulrushes), Cladium jamaicense (sawgrass), tidal creeks along the coast of northwest Florida create Phragmites australis (common reed), and Typha spp. (cat- a circuitous coastline that provides extensive habitat for tails) (FDEP 2012a, Handley et al. 2013, ANERR 2014). coastal wetlands (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The region is char- Freezing temperatures in the winter limit the exten- acterized by low elevation and gentle topography. Vari- sive proliferation of mangrove forests along the coast of able past sea levels have left behind relict bars and dunes, northwest Florida. Mangrove trees, particularly the more and the predominantly sandy soils are moderately to cold-tolerant Avicennia germinans (black mangrove), do poorly drained (FDEP 2008). The shoreline is dynamic; occur individually and in small clusters, but heavy freezes wave action, particularly that from tropical storms and periodically cause massive diebacks. Cold winters in the hurricanes, continually reshapes the coastline and bar- 1980s led to 95–98% mortality of the mangroves in the rier islands. Salt marshes line the edges of bays and the northern Gulf, but more recently cold events have been shoreward side of barrier islands, where they are protect- less frequent, which has led to an expansion of mangroves ed from Gulf of Mexico wave energy. In addition to pro- in the area (Saintilan et al. 2014). viding habitat to a large array of animals, salt marshes Northwest Florida has less urban development than also help stabilize the barrier islands and bay shorelines. southern Florida, but certain regions are growing rapidly The extensive seagrass beds found in many of the bays in popularity as tourist destinations and retirement com- are made possible, in part, by the filtration of terrestrial munities. Important economic components include fish- runoff by salt marshes. ing, shellfish harvesting, tourism, the military, agriculture, Marshes found in northwest Florida include fresh- and forestry (Handley et al. 2013, ANERR 2014). water, brackish, and salt marshes. Salt marsh vegetation Subterranean water sources include the Floridan aqui- is dominated by Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush), fer, the sand-and-gravel aquifer, and the surficial aquifer Spartina alterniflora(saltmarsh cordgrass), Spartina pat- system. The watersheds of northwest Florida contain a ens (saltmeadow hay or cordgrass), and Distichlis spicata high density of streams and extend north into portions (salt grass) (Livingston 1984, Handley et al. 2013, ANERR of Georgia and Alabama. While the rivers have compar- 2014). The transitional zone includes S. patens, Sarco- atively few flow-altering structures, the bays have been cornia ambigua (perennial glasswort), Scirpus pungens altered by shipping channels and by the opening and sta- (three‑square bulrush), and Baccharis spp. (sea myrtle/ bilization of tidal inlets to the Gulf. The U.S. Army Corps Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 35

Figure 2.1. Salt marsh extent in northwest Florida. Data source: NWFWMD 2009–2010 land use/land cover data, based on FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, NWFWMD 2010). of Engineers constructed the Gulf Intracoastal Water- development on the southern end (NWFWMD 2006a). way around 1950, creating inland connections between High nutrient levels, biological oxygen demand, and Choctawhatchee Bay, St. Andrew Bay, Lake Wimico, and coliform bacteria stemming from both point- and non- Apalachicola Bay (Brin and Handley 2007). point-source pollution are the region’s most common water quality problems (FDEP 2006). Perdido Bay Perdido Bay lies on the border between Florida and Al- Pensacola Bay System abama and receives freshwater flow from the Perdido River The Pensacola Bay System includes Santa Rosa Sound, (Figures 2.1 and 2.3). Extensive development lines the bar- Pensacola, Blackwater, East, and Escambia Bays and sev- rier islands and shorelines near the mouth of Perdido Bay. eral bayous (Figures 2.1 and 2.3). The bay receives fresh- J. roemerianus salt marshes are found lining the shoreline water flow from the Escambia, Conecuh, Blackwater, and of Tarkiln Bayou and along the mouth of the Perdido Riv- Yellow rivers. More than 70% of the watershed is forest- er. According to historical photos, Perdido Key once had ed; the remainder contains agriculture and urban devel- a large area of salt marsh, much of which has been lost to opment (FDEP 2012a). The northern and eastern regions erosion, leaving only an intermittent stretch of salt marsh of Pensacola Bay are shallow (average depth 10 ft/3 m) just 1–4 ft (0.3–1.2 m) wide (FDEP 2006). and are often stratified (FDEP 2012a).J. roemerianus and Overall, the watershed has fairly good water quality, S. alterniflora salt marshes proliferate in the lower reaches with the exception of some point-source discharges into of the river flood plains. The bay opens to the Gulf of Elevenmile Creek and nonpoint-source discharges along Mexico at the half-mile-wide Pensacola Pass. 36 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 2.2. Salt marsh extent in northwest Florida. Data source: NWFWMD 2009-2010 land use/land cover data, based on FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, NWFWMD 2010).

Discharge of wastewater into Pensacola Bay was a fluctuates with input from the river, and the bay is gener- large problem from the 1950s through the 1970s, but wa- ally stratified with a halocline (Ruth and Handley 2007). ter quality has improved significantly since passage of the Choctawhatchee Bay connects to Santa Rosa Sound, the Clean Water Act and implementation of best land-use Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and to the Gulf at the rela- practices (USEPA 2004, FDEP 2012a). Water quality con- tively small East Pass. Historically the pass only opened cerns continue regarding nutrients, chlorophyll, and clar- intermittently, but it was dredged in 1929 to provide relief ity near Pensacola and other urban areas (USEPA 2004). from flooding and the Corps of Engineers has maintained Wetlands have been subject to fragmentation and con- the pass since then to keep it open (Ruth and Handley version to other land-use types along with secondary im- 2007). After the East Pass was opened, higher salinities, pacts of neighboring development (NWFWMD 2006a). stratification, and altered erosion patterns resulted in From 1979 through 1996, the Pensacola Bay System lost the loss of salt marsh and seagrasses in the bay (Living- 7% (2000 acres/809 ha) of surrounding wetland habitat ston 2014). These changes may help explain why the salt to coastal development, sea-level rise, coastal subsidence, marsh fringe of Choctawhatchee Bay is less extensive than and erosion (USEPA 2004). that in other bays in northwest Florida (Reyer et al. 1988, Livingston 2014). Choctawhatchee Bay The human population is growing rapidly around Choctawhatchee Bay, frequently outpacing statewide The primary source of freshwater to Choctawhatchee growth rates (Ruth and Handley 2007, U.S. Census 2015). Bay is the Choctawhatchee River, the watershed of which Development is increasing in association with businesses extends north into Alabama (Figures 2.1 and 2.4). Salinity supporting Eglin Air Force Base and with an increasingly Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 37

Figure 2.4. Salt marsh extent in Choctawhatchee Bay. Data source: NWFWMD 2009–2010 land use/land Figure 2.3. Salt marsh extent in Perdido and Pensacola cover data (NWFWMD 2010). Bays. Data source: NWFWMD 2009–2010 land use/ land cover data (NWFWMD 2010). popular retirement community (Ruth and Handley 2007). Development has caused habitat loss and has physical- ly altered the bay through the construction of seawalls, jetties, bridges, and docks. Water quality is detrimentally impacted by increased pollutants and sedimentation in stormwater runoff and wastewater discharge (NWFW- MD 2002, Ruth and Handley 2007). The low tidal energy and frequent stratification in the bay result in longer residence times for pollutants (NWFWMD 2002).

St. Andrew Bay St. Andrew Bay (Figures 2.2 and 2.5) has three lobes (the West, North, and East Bays) that collect outflows Figure 2.5. Salt marsh extent in St. Andrew Bay. Data from 10 major creeks (FDEP 2004). Narrow peninsulas source: NWFWMD 2009–2010 land use/land cover protect the bay from Gulf waves and currents, resulting in data (NWFWMD 2010). little tidal flushing. Salt marshes dominated by J. roemerianus and S. alternifloraborder the coastline of West Bay and East Bay (NWFWMD 2000). The natural filtration St. Joseph Bay provided by the surrounding salt marshes contributes to the bay’s characteristically clear water. St. Joseph Bay (Figures 2.2 and 2.6), located just west Historically, St. Andrew Bay was connected to the of Apalachicola Bay, is bordered by a spit extending out Gulf at the eastern end of Shell Island. After construction from St. Joseph Peninsula. Freshwater input into St. Jo- of a shipping channel through the center of the barrier seph Bay is low; as a result, the average salinity in the bay peninsula in 1934, however, sediment slowly accreted in reflects the salinity of the Gulf of Mexico. Small amounts the East Pass until it closed in 1998. The East Pass was of freshwater flow into St. Joseph Bay from the Gulf dredged in 2002 but closed again the following year due County Canal (which connects the bay to the Gulf Intra- to sediment accretion (FDEP 2004). The coastline re- coastal Waterway), rainfall, small creeks, and groundwa- mains dynamic, and the shipping channel and surround- ter seepage (SJBAP 2008). St. Joseph Bay is clear with a ing beaches are dredged and renourished by the Corps of predominantly sandy bottom and supports extensive sea- Engineers. Panama City and Tyndall Air Force Base are grass habitat. located on the eastern side of the bay. Tourism and the Salt marshes dominated by J. roemerianus and S. military are the dominant forces in the local economy, alterniflora are found in fringes along the shoreline of and much of the surrounding area is rural and under sil- the bay (SJBAP 2008). In the 1990s St. Joseph Bay salt viculture (Brin and Handley 2007). marshes showed signs of stress (brown vegetation with 38 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 2.6. St. Joseph Bay salt marsh habitat and known mangrove locations. Data source: Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve mapping (see text for details). low above-ground biomass) and mortality (SJBAP 2008). Apalachicola River watershed includes portions of Possible causes of this die-off include pathogens, pollu- Florida, Alabama, and Georgia, including Atlanta. tion, drought-related factors, and lack of sediment (Flo- Apalachicola Bay is therefore vulnerable to an array ry and Alber 2002). Approximately 50% of the marsh of upstream water quality and water quantity factors, grasses recovered naturally in the years after the die-off, and management of the watershed is complex due and S. alterniflora was planted to aid repopulation of to different land- and water-use policies across three the remaining areas. states (Edmiston 2008). In 2009, Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Apalachicola Bay is a broad, shallow estuary lined Reserve (ANERR) staff began to map and document in- by barrier islands covering 220 mi2 (570 km2) (Edmiston dividual mangrove trees along the southeastern shoreline 2008). The barrier islands provide protection from the of St. Joseph Bay (Figure 2.6). Staff documented very few, waves of the Gulf, creating a low-energy environment small Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove) individuals that in the bay. Oyster reefs are found throughout Apala- did not appear to survive the winter in 2010. A. germinans chicola Bay, and shellfish harvesting is an important was far more abundant than R. mangle and better able to component of the local economy. The bay encompass- withstand the colder temperatures. Mapping efforts were es the ANERR, which also includes the lower 52 mi (84 discontinued in 2011 due to budget cuts, but reestablished km) of the Apalachicola River and several of its dis- in 2014. tributaries (ANERR 2014). A large amount of the land outside of ANERR is also publicly owned, including Apalachicola Bay the Apalachicola National Forest and Tate’s Hell State Forest, which limits human development and popula- The Chattahoochee and Flint rivers merge up- tion growth. The region is one of the least populated stream of the Jim Woodruff Dam, forming the Apala- coastal areas in the State, and current development is chicola River, which then flows 106 mi (170 km) south concentrated along the coast. to Apalachicola Bay (Figures 2.2 and 2.7). The large Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 39

Figure 2.7. Apalachicola Bay salt marsh habitat and known mangrove locations. Data source: Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve mapping.

Eastern Franklin County: sus 2015). Urban development is generally concentrated Dog Island/St. George Sound near the coastline, which has both direct effects (habitat loss and fragmentation) and indirect effects (poor Dog Island is located 3.5 mi (5.6 km) offshore of water quality and altered hydrology) on surrounding Franklin County, providing a barrier-island border to wetlands (NWFWMD 2000, Ruth and Handley 2007, St. George Sound (Figures 2.2 and 2.8). Salt marshes ANERR 2014). Increasing tourism and recreational use are found on the island and at the mouths of the Car- of the coast also impact wetlands through improper ve- rabelle, Ochlockonee, and Sopchoppy rivers. Dog Island hicle use, trampling, pesticide use, erosion from boat contains dune ridges along with a mixture of salt and wakes, and dredging for boat access (Handley et al. freshwater wetlands (Anderson and Alexander 1985). 2013). While numerous public lands afford protection The bay side of the island contains salt marshes domi- from development, much of the rural, undeveloped nated by J. roemerianus and S. alterniflora, while fresh- coastline remains in private ownership and is suscepti- water marshes are found toward the interior. A. germi- ble to future development. nans dieback due to cold winter temperatures has often • Water quality and quantity: Population growth and been extreme (70% of mangroves died in the winter of urban development have altered the quantity and qual- 1983–84), but the community subsequently recovered ity of freshwater entering estuaries. Population growth (Anderson and Alexander 1985). in the upstream reaches of the Apalachicola watershed has led to increasing demand for freshwater, resulting Threats to coastal wetlands in decreased flows to the Apalachicola River (ANERR 2014). Improperly treated wastewater and urban run- • Human development: While northwest Florida is rel- off are issues in several of the bays (NWFWMD 2006a, atively undeveloped compared with south Florida, the SJBAP 2008). Poorly functioning septic systems are of population in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton coun- particular concern, especially for their possible impact ties is growing faster than statewide averages (U.S. Cen- on the quality of shellfish in oyster-harvesting regions 40 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 2.8. Eastern Franklin County (including Dog Island) salt marsh habitat and known mangrove locations. Data source: Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve mapping.

(ANERR 2014). The impacts of chemical contamina- also been significantly modified by the Jim Woodruff tion and nutrient enrichment are worsened because Dam, channelization, and dredging. The straightening many of these bays have small outlets into the Gulf; this of the Apalachicola River has also resulted in increased causes stratification, limited tidal flushing, anda long flow rates and decreased river depth (ANERR 2014). residence time for contaminants (NWFWMD 2000, • Erosion and accretion: Patterns of erosion and accre- Brin and Handley 2007, FDEP 2012b). tion are altered by the construction and stabilization of • Altered hydrology: The hydrology of bays along the shipping channels, sea-level rise, hardened shorelines, and coast of northwest Florida have been altered by the con- subsidence (Handley et al. 2013). Erosion is particularly struction of channels, the Intracoastal Waterway, and the forceful during tropical storms and hurricanes. Cape San opening or stabilization of tidal inlets to the Gulf. These Blas on St. Joseph Bay is one of the most severely eroding alterations not only modify salinity and tidal flow in the locations in Florida and has eroded up to 40 ft (12 m) in bays, but they also alter patterns of accretion and erosion. one year (SJBAP 2008). Similarly, much of the salt marsh Hydrology is also altered locally by hardened shorelines, on Perdido Key has been lost to erosion (FDEP 2006). bridges, and other coastal development. Stormwater run- • Climate change and sea-level rise: This area is suscep- off is diverted and concentrated by drainage systems col- tible to saltwater intrusion and the growing impact of lecting runoff from impervious surfaces. Even trenches tidal forces due to the low elevation and gentle topogra- designed to prevent the spread of forest fires alter surface phy. With higher sea level, tidal forces will reach farther water flow, compartmentalizing and channelizing runoff upstream and storm surges will extend farther inland. (FDEP 2008). Increasing salinity and inundation will likely result in Upstream alterations to rivers also change the deliv- salt marshes’ displacing freshwater wetlands. Addition- ery of freshwater to the estuaries. A dam was built in ally, the proliferation of nonnative species may be aid- 1961 in the North Bay of St. Andrew Bay to create Deer ed by changes in abiotic factors, including temperature Point Lake. The hydrology of the Apalachicola River has and salinity. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 41

Even though cold events have historically restricted the proliferation of mangroves in northern Florida, A. germinans has been able to expand northward due to the reduced frequency of such events (Stevens et al. 2006). Mangroves in northwest Florida are still patchy and usually occur as solitary trees or in small clusters, but as their canopy coverage increases they can shade out and replace marsh vegetation (Stevens et al. 2006). • Natural events: Naturally occurring events such as tropical storms, hurricanes, and droughts also threaten salt marsh habitat. For instance, when Hurricane Den- nis made landfall on northwest Florida in 2005, an 8- to 10-ft (2.4–3 m) storm surge crossed the barrier islands in ANERR, depositing sediment and smothering aquatic vegetation. Many of the low-salinity marsh species Figure 2.9. Recent acreages of salt marshes in northwest were killed by inundation by sea water (ANERR 2014). Florida, as derived from NWFWMD land use/land cover Vegetation that survives the initial inundation from data (NWFWMD 2010). storm events may be ultimately displaced by invasive vegetation that thrives after a disturbance (Handley et Table 2.1. Recent acreages of salt marshes (FLUCCS al. 2013). Natural droughts, such as that in 1999–2001, 6420) in northwest Florida. Data sources: FDOT 1999, also affect freshwater input, salinity regimes, nutrient NWFWMD 2010. delivery, and sedimentation (Ruth and Handley 2007). • Invasive species: Invasive vegetation in and around Year Salt marsh wetlands in northwest Florida include Triadica sebifera 1994–95 34,152 (Chinese tallow), Cinnamomum camphora (camphor 2004 34,483 tree), Arundo donax (giant cane), Lygodium japoni- 2006–07 36,843 cum (Japanese climbing fern), Schinus terebenthifolius 2009–10 36,804 (Brazilian pepper), and an invasive strain of Phragmites australis (common reed) (NWFWMD 2006a, ANERR 2014). Otherwise, federally listed invasive species are The largest gain occurred when several wet prairies, non- currently not considered a serious threat to coastal wet- vegetated wetlands, tidal flats, and mixed scrub–shrub wetlands in this region. lands from the 2004 LULC data set were reclassified as salt marsh in 2006–2007. Some of this variability may be due to Mapping and monitoring efforts refinement of mapping methods and classification rather than change in land cover. For example, one 75-acre (30 ha) Water management district mapping region was recorded as a mangrove swamp (FLUCCS 6120) The Northwest Florida Water Management District in NWFWMD’s 1994–95 land use/land cover (LULC) data. (NWFWMD) conducts periodic land use/land cover This location, along western St. Andrew Bay, is classified as (LULC) mapping at regular intervals in its jurisdiction mixed scrub–shrub wetland (FLUCCS 6460) in later LULC (Figure 2.9, Table 2.1). The features delineated in LULC data sets. The mixed scrub–shrub wetland classification maps are categorized according to the Florida Land Use (FLUCCS 6460) was not used in the 1994–95 LULC data and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS; FDOT 1999). yet proliferated in LULC data thereafter. NWFWMD LULC data sets are based on aerial ortho- imagery and published at the 1:24,000 (1 in. = 2,000 ft) USGS and EPA emergent wetlands scale. The data files were created by Florida Department status and trend of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Watershed Res- toration (NWFWMD 2010). Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and According to NWFWMD LULC data, salt marsh ex- the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) partnered tent in northwest Florida has increased by more than 2,000 to map and analyze the status of coastal wetlands along the acres (809 ha) from 1994 to 2010 (Figure 2.9, Table 2.1). Gulf of Mexico. As part of that study, wetland extent in 42 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Pensacola Bay and Choctawhatchee Bay was mapped from ence-agenda. Estuarine tidal marsh along the Gulf Coast 1979 and 1996 data using stereoscopic photointerpretation portion of the GCPO LCC region has been identified as and ground truthing (Handley et al. 2013). Vegetation was one of the LCC’s priority systems. As part of the assess- classified using Cowardin et al.’s (1979) classification sys- ment, the LCC is using land cover overlays from the Na- tem. Palustrine wetlands were found to have had a much tional Wetlands Inventory, Cooperative Land Cover 3.0 greater decline from 1979 to 1996 (18,267 acre/7,390 ha and the Coastal Change Analysis Program in Florida to lost, or 55.89%) than estuarine wetlands (436 acres/176 ha assess the extent of estuarine tidal marsh in the Gulf Coast lost, or 4%). While several other estimates of marsh extent portion of the western Florida panhandle. Overlays of were also made in northwest Florida in the 1970s and 1980s, multiple data sets are available at gcpolcc.databasin.org/. the methods used were so different that the data were difficult to compare (Reyer et al. 1988, FDEP 2012b, Handley National Estuarine Research Reserve monitoring et al. 2013). As part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System’s System Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) Mapping of the Apalachicola National Estuarine bio-monitoring protocol, in 2014 ANERR staff began Research Reserve long-term monitoring of the freshwater and brackish Using ArcGIS, ANERR staff isolated salt marsh lay- emergent vegetation in the marshes of the lower Apala- ers from each of the following five regional land-cover chicola River and the salt marshes of Little St. George data sets and merged them into one layer to provide a Island. Monitoring locations are intended to represent rough estimate of salt marsh habitat in this area overall natural estuarine communities that have not been signifi- (Figures 2.6–2.8): cantly altered by natural causes or human activity (Moore 2009). Three transects at each location are monitored an- • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands nually at the peak of biomass following Moore (2009). Inventory (years of available data vary) Two wells for monitoring pore water were installed adja- • Northwest Florida Water Management District cent to each transect. (2009–11) Elevation and sediment accretion has also been stud- • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ied in the Apalachicola region. In 1996 two sediment ele- (FWC) compilation of Florida Water Management vation tables (SETs) were installed by the Florida Geologi- District data (1999–2011) cal Survey in a distributary of the Apalachicola River that drains into East Bay. Data from these SETs showed that the • Florida Natural Areas Inventory/FWC Cooperative marshes did have high rates of accretion (as much as 0.5– Land Cover (2003–10) 0.75 in./14–19 mm per year). Nevertheless, overall elevation • ANERR Habitat Mapping and Change Plan (NOAA/ changes were negative due to compaction and subsidence FDEP) (2012) in the river delta (Hendrickson 1997, Edmiston 2008). Additionally, 20 SETs were installed in 2011–12 to mon- Mangrove habitat is not documented in any of itor erosion and accretion rates in the lower-river marshes the large regional data sets for northwest Florida, but of the Apalachicola floodplain and in the salt marshes of ANERR staff have been monitoring individual mangrove the barrier islands. These monitoring efforts are part of trees in salt marsh habitats in the Apalachicola Bay area the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s since 2009. Staff will continue to document this habitat Sentinel Site Program designed to track ecosystem integrity annually, because observations indicate that these species and socioeconomic health indicators for specific manage- are increasing in abundance, a trend that is expected to ment initiatives. The data will be provided to researchers continue as a result of changing climate. for modeling biological feedback to sea-level rise. These models will allow stakeholders and decision makers to un- Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape derstand how sea-level rise will affect freshwater and salt- Conservation Cooperative mapping assessment water marsh habitats in the Apalachicola area. The Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Con- servation Cooperative (GCPO LCC) is conducting a rap- Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model id ecological assessment of nine priority habitat systems As revealed by the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Mod- defined in its draft Integrated Science Agenda, available el (SLAMM) developed in 2012 by The Nature Conser- at lccnetwork.org/resource/gcpo-lcc-draft-integrated-sci- vancy, the lands surrounding Apalachicola Bay are highly Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 43 vulnerable to sea-level rise even under modest scenarios 2008). Studies of shoreline accretion and erosion would (Freeman et al. 2012). Forested wetlands would be re- also help in prioritizing restoration and protection ef- placed by salt-tolerant vegetation, reducing habitat ex- forts for salt marshes (Handley et al. 2013). tend for organisms that depend on forested wetland hab- • Mangrove range expands northward in Florida in the itats. These changes would be exacerbated if freshwater form of single trees or clusters of trees surrounded by inflow was reduced by drought or upstream demand. salt marsh. Current land classification techniques are generally based on predominant vegetation types rath- Choctawhatchee Bay Live Oak Point er than on individual plants and so overlook individual shoreline erosion trees. Presence/absence techniques, such as those shown in Figures 2.6–2.8, provide a better method of tracking Live Oak Point contains approximately 1,000 acres (404 mangrove proliferation. ha) of salt marsh, the largest extent on Choctawhatchee Bay. The NWFWMD commissioned a study on shoreline • Engage communities and citizens in improving the changes in the salt marsh from 1941 to 2004 (NWFWMD stewardship of coastal resources. Encourage the 2006b). The study found that the salt marsh was eroding planting of living shorelines along residential proper- at a pace of 0.6 acre (0.24 ha) per year, which was likely ty and public parks. Shoreline vegetation provides sta- to increase to 0.7 acre (0.28 ha) per year by 2020. It was bilization, valuable ecosystem services, and is useful in noted that waves were carving into the marsh platform, un- educating the public. dercutting the exposed peat and creating small ledges that • Identify and prioritize acquisition of lands and resto- ultimately broke off and were carried away by higher tides. ration of habitats that act as buffers and that will allow Recommendations include the installation of permanent coastal wetlands to move inland as habitat is lost due to breakwaters to divert wave energy and the planting of salt sea-level rise and erosion. Buffer zones of undisturbed marsh species in regions of accretion to compensate for native vegetation around wetlands and other sensitive erosional salt marsh loss (NWFWMD 2006b). habitats also help trap sediment and nutrients, stabilize the shoreline, lessen flooding, and provide habitat for Independent research other native species (SRC 2002). Randall Hughes with the Florida State University • Thoughtful urban planning can decrease the impacts of Coastal and Marine Laboratory and Northeastern Uni- development on surrounding natural areas. The use of versity began taking a closer look at A. germinans in the porous pavement decreases concentration of stormwater salt marshes of St. Joseph Bay in 2011. The less cold-tol- runoff, and open, vegetated, curved stormwater paths erant R. mangle was found in the marshes as well. Over mimic more natural drainage patterns (SRC 2002). When a five-year period she did not see any significant dieback, possible, construction of septic tank systems near wet- even during hard freezes. These trends are expected to lands and shorelines should be discouraged. The cumu- continue, and it is anticipated that these species will be- lative impact of urban development on coastal habitats come more abundant as the climate continues to change. should be considered, even though development permits Brief descriptions of the ongoing mangrove monitoring are issued for individual projects (NWFWMD 2000). project and other salt marsh studies can be found at blog. When combined together, multiple developments can wfsu.org/blog-coastal-health/. fragment habitat and alter the hydrology of wetlands.

Recommendations for protection, Works cited management, and monitoring Anderson L, Alexander L. 1985. The vegetation of Dog • Monitoring changes in habitat, water quality, and eco- Island, Florida. Florida Scientist 48:232–252. system health is a key component of management. Mon- Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve. itoring data should be used in conjunction with results 2014. Apalachicola National Estuarine Research of other scientific studies to aid in implementing best Reserve management plan. Florida Department of management practices for ecosystem management. The Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. publicfiles. die-offs and stress signs demonstrated by St. Joseph Bay dep.state.fl.us/cama/plans/aquatic/ANERR_ salt marshes point to the need for further study to iden- Management_Plan_2013.pdf, accessed May 2015. tify specific stressors, restore affected areas, and imple- Brin MS, Handley LR. 2007. St. Andrew Bay. Pp. ment long-term monitoring for areas of concern (SJBAP 155–169 in Handley L, Altasman D, DeMay R (eds.) 44 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Paper presented at the Working Group Meeting Mexico: 1940–2002. Scientific Investigations Report on Marsh Dieback in Georgia. Georgia Coastal 2006-5287. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Research Council. www.gcrc.uga.edu/pdfs/ pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/, accessed May 2015. marshsummarygcrc.pdf, accessed May 2015. Cowardin M, Carter V, Golet FC, Laroe ET. Freeman L, Geselbrancht L, Gordon D, Kelly E, 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater Racevskis L. 2012. Understanding future sea level habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. rise impacts on coastal wetlands in the Apalachicola Fish and Wildlife Service, Jamestown, North Dakota. Bay region of Florida’s Gulf coast. DEP agreement www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Classification- no. CM112. The Nature Conservancy for the Florida of-Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats-of-the-United- Department of Environmental Protection. States.pdf, accessed May 2015. Handley LR, Spear KA, Albrecht B, Bruening K, Edmiston HL. 2008. A river meets the bay: a McDowell A, Baumstark R, Moyer R, Thatcher characterization of the Apalachicola River and Bay C. 2013. Florida Panhandle. In Handley L, System. Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Spear K, Thatcher C, Wilson S (eds.). Emergent Reserve, Apalachicola, Florida. www.dep.state.fl.us/ wetlands status and trends in the northern Gulf coastal/downloads/management_plans/A_River_ of Mexico: 1950–2010. U.S. Geological Survey, Meets_the_Bay.pdf, accessed May 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gulf of Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Mexico Program Office, Tampa. pubs.er.usgs.gov/ St. Andrew State Park unit management plan. Florida publication/70047177, accessed May 2015. Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. Hendrickson JC. 1997. Coastal wetland response to www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ rising sea-level: quantification of short- and long- StAndrewsStatePark.pdf, accessed May 2015. term accretion and subsidence, northeastern Gulf Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. of Mexico. M.S. thesis, Florida State University, Perdido Key State Park unit management plan. Florida Tallahassee. Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. Livingston RJ. 1984. The ecology of the Apalachicola www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ Bay system: an estuarine profile. FWS/OBS-8205. PerdidoKeyStatePark.pdf, accessed May 2015. National Coastal Ecosystems Team, U. S. Fish and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Wildlife Service, Tallahassee, Florida. www.nwrc. 2008. Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park usgs.gov/techrpt/82-05.pdf, accessed May 2015. unit management plan. Florida Department of Livingston RJ. 2014. Climate change and coastal Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. www. ecosystems: long-term effects of climate and nutrient dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ loading on trophic organization. CRC Press Taylor & YellowRiverMarshPreserveStatePark.pdf, accessed Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida. May 2015. Moore K. 2009. NERRS SWMP biomonitoring Florida Department of Environmental Protection. protocol: long-term monitoring of estuarine 2012a. Site-specific information in support of submersed and emergent vegetation communities. establishing numeric nutrient criteria for Pensacola National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Bay. Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/ Gloucester Point, Virginia. coast.noaa.gov/data/docs/ swq-docs.htm, accessed May 2015. nerrs/Research_TechSeries_TechReportSWMPBio- Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2012b. MonitoringProtocol.pdf, accessed May 2015. Site-specific information in support of establishing Northwest Florida Water Management District. numeric nutrient criteria for Choctawhatchee Bay. 2000. St. Andrew Bay watershed surface water Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/swq- improvement and management plan. Havana, docs.htm, accessed May 2015. Florida. www.nwfwater.com/Water-Resources/ Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. SWIM/St.-Andrew-Bay, accessed May 2015. Florida land use, cover and forms classification Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2002. system, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, Choctawhatchee River and bay system surface water Thematic Mapping Section. www.dot.state. improvement and management plan. Prepared by fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/ Thorpe P, Sultana F, Stafford C. Havana, Florida. fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed May 2015. www.nwfwater.com/Water-Resources/SWIM/ Flory J, Alber M. 2002. Dead marsh information. Choctawhatchee-River-and-Bay, accessed May 2015. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 45

Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2006a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. The Surface water improvement and management ecological condition of the Pensacola Bay System, program priority list for the Northwest Florida Water northwest Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Management District. Havana, Florida. Agency, Office of Research and Development, Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2006b. National Health and Ecological Effects Research Live Oak Point marsh shoreline protection and Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf wetland mitigation management plan. Prepared Breeze, Florida. nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL. by Burdge R, Barth MA. NWFWMD Biological cgi?Dockey=P1006GD6.TXT, accessed May 2015. Research Associates. Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2010. GIS data directory. www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/data- General references and publications/gis-mapping/, accessed May 2015. additional regional information Reyer AJ, Holland CL, Alexander CE, Cassells JE, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Field DW. 1988. The distribution and areal extent Cooperative: gcpolcc.org/ of coastal wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico, USA. images.library.wisc.edu/EcoNatRes/EFacs/Wetlands/ Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Wetlands15/reference/econatres.wetlands15.areyer. Cooperative compilation of Gulf of Mexico surface pdf, accessed May 2015. elevation tables (SETS): gcpolcc.databasin.org/maps/ Ruth B, Handley LR. 2007. Choctawhatchee Bay. new#datasets=6a71b8fb60224720b903c770b8a93929 Pp. 143–153 in Handley L, Altsman D, DeMay Hughes R. 2013. Black mangroves: strangers in a St. Joe R (eds.) Seagrass status and trends in the Bay marsh. WFSU ecology blog: blog.wfsu.org/blog- northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002. Scientific coastal-health/?p=6919, accessed May 2015 Investigations Report 2006–5287. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. pubs.usgs.gov/ Friends of St. Joseph Bay Preserve: sir/2006/5287/, accessed May 2015. www.stjosephbaypreserves.org/ Saintilan N, Wilson N, Rogers K, Rajkaran A, Krauss Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve: KW. 2014. Mangrove expansion and salt marsh apalachicolareserve.com/ decline at mangrove poleward limits. Global Change Biology 20:147–157. Real-time weather and water quality data for ANERR: Santa Rosa County. 2002. Santa Rosa County cdmo.baruch.sc.edu/get/realTime.cfm Stormwater Runoff Task Force draft report, Santa National Estuarine Research Reserve System Central Rosa County, Florida. Data Management Office: Stevens PW, Fox SL, Montague CL. 2006. The interplay cdmo.baruch.sc.edu/get/landing.cfm between mangroves and salt marshes at the transition between temperate and subtropical climate in Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection – Wetlands Ecology and Management 14:435–444. Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve. 2008. St. Joseph Bay (ANERR): http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/ Aquatic Preserve management plan 2008–2018. Florida apalachicola/ Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/stjoseph/pub/ Regional contacts StJosephBay_2008.pdf, accessed May 2015. U.S. Census. 2015. United States Census Bureau state Kim Wren, Apalachicola National Estuarine Research & county quick facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts, Reserve, [email protected] accessed May 2015. Caitlin Snyder, Apalachicola National Estuarine Re- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. The search Reserve, [email protected] ecological condition of the Pensacola Bay system, northwest Florida (1994–2001). EPA620-R-05-002. U.S. Katie Konchar, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research Commission, [email protected] and Development, National Health and Ecological Beth Fugate, Florida Department of Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Protection, [email protected] Gulf Breeze, Florida. nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL. cgi?Dockey=P1006GD6.TXT, accessed May 2015. 46 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 3 Big Bend and Springs Coast

Ellen Raabe, U.S. Geological Survey, Emeritus Theresa Thom, U.S. National Park Service Nicole M. Rankin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kris Kaufman, NOAA Restoration Center Kara R. Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the region marshes, dominated by Cladium jamaicense (saw-grass), Typha spp. (cattails), and forested wetlands (Clewell et al. The region between Tampa Bay and the Panhandle 2002, Light et al. 2002). barrier island system is a marsh-dominated coast com- As elevation increases on the landward edge of the monly referred to as the Big Bend of Florida. At the marsh or in isolated pockets, the vegetation transitions State level and in this chapter, the region is split in two; through halophytic marsh and scrub into hammock com- the northern counties from Wakulla to Levy County are munities dominated by Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm), called the Big Bend, and the southern counties from Cit- Juniperus silicicola (southern red cedar), and Quercus rus County to Pasco County are called the Springs Coast virginiana (live oak) (Williams et al. 1999). Elevated is- (Figure 3.1). This extensive region is divided between lands of coastal hammock communities are interspersed three water management districts (Figure 3.2): Northwest in both salt and brackish marshes (Leonard et al. 1995, Florida, Suwannee River, and Southwest Florida (NWF- Williams et al. 1999). WMD, SRWMD, and SWFWMD, respectively). The gen- Salt marshes in the Big Bend and Springs Coast in- tle topography, low wave energy, and broad, shallow Flor- clude tidal creeks and some natural levees created by sand ida Shelf provide ideal conditions for the extensive salt and sediments deposited during high tides and storms marshes along the Big Bend and Springs Coast (Rupert (Leonard et al. 1995, Wright et al. 2005). Salt barrens are and Arthur 1997, FDEP 2014). common in the marsh interior, particularly in counties Temperature, elevation, salinity, and tidal inunda- north of the Suwannee River (Raabe et al. 1996, Hoffman tion influence coastal wetland vegetation (Coultas and and Dawes 1997). These sparsely vegetated salt barrens Hsieh 1997). Broad swaths of Juncus roemerianus (black occur between the marsh and coastal forest at elevations needlerush) marsh dominate in this region, which is char- only centimeters above mean high water (Raabe et al. acterized by low wave energy, a semi-diurnal 3.2-ft (1 1996). Extensive seagrass beds are found seaward of the m) tidal range, and freshwater input from the Floridan salt marshes, interspersed with unvegetated intertidal aquifer (Stout 1984, Wolfe 1990, Clewell et al. 2002). J. ro- flats (Mattson et al. 2007). Oyster reefs are found near riv- emerianus does not tolerate inundation as well as Spartina er mouths, tidal creeks, and offshore, depending on fresh- alterniflora (smooth cordgrass), which occurs in the low water inputs and tidal fluctuations (Seavey et al. 2011). marsh and is present mainly in borders along the coastline Mangroves can be found as a fringe along the coast- and tidal creeks (Coultas and Hsieh 1997). Marsh zones al mainland and barrier islands, particularly at Cedar in this region may be very broad due to the gentle slope of Key (Figure 3.3), in the Ozello archipelago, and in Pasco the land. Where salinity is lower, near rivers or spring-fed County. Freezing temperatures limit the northern range creeks, salt marsh grades into oligohaline and freshwater of mangroves, although Avicennia germinans (black Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 47

Figure 3.1. Salt marsh and mangrove extent in the Big Bend and Springs Coast region. Data source: NWFWMD 2009–2010, SRWMD 2010–2011, and SWFWMD 2011 land use/land cover data, based on FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, NWFWMD 2010, SRWMD 2011, SWFWMD 2011). 48 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

al. 1995, Wright et al. 2005). A few natural sandy beaches occur on Seahorse and Cedar keys, remnants of ancient sand dunes (Wright et al. 2005). The area is not a traditional estuary, since it is not partly enclosed by land (Wolfe 1990). However, it is bounded by a broad, shallow limestone shelf that sufficiently dampens wave energy, resulting in a low-energy estuarine environment (Rupert and Arthur 1997). Year- round the coastal waters are typically less saline than seawater due to freshwater inputs (Orlando et al. 1993). The Floridan aquifer lies close to the surface here, and freshwater springs contribute to several spring-fed rivers and directly to the marsh and coastal waters (Coultas and Hsieh 1997, Raabe et al. 2011). Flow from the springs is fairly consistent compared with that of surface streams, since groundwater responds more slowly to changes in rainfall (Wolfe 1990). The spring water is very clear, and the temperature is consistent year-round. The mean water temperature is approximately 22.2 °C (72 °F), roughly the same as the mean air temperature (Hornsby and Ceryak 2000), making the region a natural haven for manatees in colder weather and a popular tourist destination.

Human impacts Figure 3.2. Water management districts within the In part due to the lack of extensive beaches, the Big Big Bend and Springs Coast Region (outlined in red) Bend and Springs Coast has remained less developed than include parts of the Northwest Florida, Suwannee River, the rest of Florida. Often referred to as the nature coast and Southwest Florida water management districts of Florida, it has been classified as one of the least pollut- (NWFWMD, SRWMD, and SWFWMD). ed coastlines in the continental United States (Livingston 1990). The Suwannee River lacks the impoundments and diversions commonly found in developed regions, making mangrove) has been able to expand northward due to re- it one of the least impacted river systems in the United duced frequency of extreme cold events (Lugo and Pat- States (Katz and Raabe 2005, Thom et al. 2015). terson-Zucca 1977, Kangas and Lugo 1990, Stevens et Population in the Springs Coast, however, is increas- al. 2006, Cavanaugh et al. 2014). This expansion in man- ing (U.S. Census 2015). In places like Hernando Beach, grove swamps, often at the expense of salt marsh habitat, coastal wetland habitat has been dredged and filled in is clearly visible in land classification data from SRWMD the construction of subdivisions (Wolfe 1990). Although and SWFWMD (Figure 3.4). the Big Bend is predominantly undeveloped and much of the population is rural, human impact is growing as Local geology and hydrology the region becomes increasingly popular for ecotourism and marine activities (FDEP 2014). Other economically The underlying limestone shelf is found close to the important industries in the region include pit mining for land surface along the Big Bend and Springs Coast (Ru- limerock, cattle ranging, hog ranging, fishing, and shell- pert and Arthur 1997), resulting in a relatively stable fish harvesting (Wolfe 1990, FWC 2004, FDEP 2014). shoreline compared to other regions in Florida (Raabe A large array of protected lands and coastal waters are et al. 2004). The karst limestone is occasionally exposed found along the Springs Coast and Big Bend. Aquatic pre- on land and along stream beds (Wolfe 1990, FDEP 2014). serves include the extensive Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic The coastline in this region has limited free sediment, but Preserve, which covers nearly 1 million acres (404,700 ha), this sediment is maintained within the system due to the along with the smaller Alligator Harbor and St. Martins low-energy environment (Rupert and Arthur 1997) and Marsh Aquatic Preserves (FDEP 2014). The region includes redistribution during wind and storm events (Leonard et five national wildlife refuges (NWRs): St. Marks, Lower Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 49

Figure 3.3. Extent of salt marshes and mangroves around Cedar Key. Data source: SRWMD 2010–2011 land use/ land cover data, based on FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SRWMD 2011). 50 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Suwanee, Cedar Keys, Crystal River, and Chassahowitz- ka, totaling more than 155,000 acres (62,700 ha). In addition to public land owned by water management districts, State-managed lands along the coast include Econfina Riv- er State Park, Big Bend Wildlife Management Area, Wacca- sassa Bay Preserve State Park, Crystal River Preserve State Park, the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway, Werner-Boyce Salt Springs State Park, Withlacoochee Gulf Preserve, and Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve.

Threats to coastal wetlands • Climate change and sea-level rise: Sea-level rise will impact coastal wetlands in this region through greater inland inundation and heightened wave erosion. At Ce- dar Key, sea level rose an average of 0.077 in. (1.97 mm) per year from 1914–2015 (NOAA 2016). The Big Bend and Springs Coast is particularly susceptible to flooding by storm surge and sea-level rise due to the gentle slope of the topography. In regions with just 5 ft of elevation gain over 3 mi (~1.5 m over 5 km), 2 in. (5 cm) of increased sea level can affect land 500 ft (150 m) inland, with drastic impacts on coastal forests adjoining the tidal marsh system (Stumpf and Haines 1998). • Altered hydrology: Although the population in this region is relatively small, humans have impacted both surface and groundwater hydrology. Ditches, dams, and flood-protection structures alter surface water flow, rates of drainage, and water retention times (Wolfe 1990). The Hickory Mound impoundment in Taylor County altered salinity regimes when it was built in 1968 to create a brackish marsh and augment waterfowl habitat (FDEP 2014). Roads through low-ly- ing lands can function as levees, decreasing hydrologic connectivity of the wetlands, fragmenting habitats, and obstructing water flow (Warren Pinnacle 2011). Boating channels have also been dredged in parts of the region, the most prominent of which is the remnant western edge of the attempted Cross Florida Barge Canal, which ends in Withlacoochee Bay. Freshwater withdrawal and water extraction to support urban regions such as the growing Tampa Bay Figure 3.4. Recent acreages of salt marshes and population results in lower groundwater levels and mangrove swamps in the Big Bend and Springs Coast decreases spring discharge (SWFWMD 2001); Seven region, by water management district (FDOT 1999, Springs in Pasco County has stopped flowing entire- NWFWMD 2010, SRWMD 2011, SWFWMD 2011). ly (Harrington et al. 2010). Although less freshwater is withdrawn in the SRWMD than in the other water management districts, that rate increased rapidly from 1975 to 2000 (Marella 2014). Flow in the Suwannee River has also decreased due to withdrawal upstream; since monitoring began in 1931, the four lowest average Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 51

annual flows in the Suwannee River have all occurred (Clewell et al. 2002), recolonized the area after the freez- since 2000 (USGS 2013, Thom et al. 2015). Addition- es, yet subsequent mild winters allowed A. germinans ally, the drinking-water supply in Cedar Key was con- to reclaim the area and expand northward. Mangroves taminated by saltwater intrusion during a drought in at the northern end of their range tend to establish on 2012 (Smith 2012). Alterations to surface hydrology the Gulf edge of salt marshes, often on islands (Figure and reduction in freshwater flow threaten oligohaline 3.3). As the mangroves increase in size and canopy cov- marshes and encourage the landward incursion of salt erage, they shade and eventually replace marsh vegeta- marsh species. tion (Stevens et al. 2006, Cavanaugh et al. 2014). • High nutrient concentrations: Increased nutrient con- • Erosion: Despite the relative stability afforded by the centrations are an important water-quality concern in shallow limestone shelf, the shoreline along the Big natural springs and the Suwannee River (Thom et al. Bend has been eroding at 3.9 ft (1.2 m) per year over the 2015). Fertilizers, atmospheric deposition, septic tanks, past 120 years (Raabe et al. 2004, Raabe and Stumpf and manure contribute nitrogen to surface water and 2015). Mapping efforts comparing historical and mod- seeps into groundwater, which later comes to the surface ern shorelines show both the loss and gain of marsh at springs (Katz et al. 1999, Harrington et al. 2010). Ni- habitat along the Big Bend. In several locations, includ- trate levels are particularly high during periods of low ing those just north of Weeki Wachee and just east of flow (Pittman et al. 1997, Katz et al. 1999, FDEP 2003). Cedar Key, salt marshes have been disproportionate- Nitrate levels in spring boils along the Springs Coast ly replaced by unvegetated mud flats or open water range from 0.185 to 0.575 mg/L, frequently exceeding (Raabe et al. 2004). Landward movement of salt marsh- the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s es has compensated for this loss of salt marsh habitat, nitrate threshold of 0.35 mg/L for clear-water streams but at the expense of upland forest communities that (Harrington et al. 2010). Isotope studies indicate that cannot tolerate increased salinity (Kurz and Wagner the primary contributors of nitrogen to these springs 1957, Williams et al. 1999, Raabe et al. 2004, Raabe and are inorganic fertilizer, most likely from lawn and golf Stumpf 2015). This inland migration of the marsh has course application, and septic tanks (Harrington et al. been documented at 2–3 times the rate of loss to water 2010). Wastewater discharged via land application and (Raabe and Stumpf 2015). retained in percolation ponds may also contribute nu- • Invasive vegetation: As in much of the rest of Florida, trients to groundwater (Harrington et al. 2010). Surface invasive plant species threaten coastal wetlands in the Big water naturally percolates down to the aquifer, but this Bend and Springs Coast region. More than 500 nonna- process is accelerated by drainage wells and sink holes tive plant species have been documented in Florida (FWC (Wolfe 1990). 2014), and more than 60 nonnative invasive plant species The response of coastal wetlands to eutrophication have been identified in the Big Bend Aquatic Preserve is variable and poorly understood (Kirwan and Mego- alone, including Eichornia crassipes (water hyacinth), nigal 2013). Deegan et al. (2012) found that high nu- Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper), and Casua- trient levels increased above-ground Spartina spp. bio- rina spp. (Australian pine) (FDEP 2014). Increased nutri- mass at the expense of root systems and subsequently ent levels may also make freshwater Cladium jamaicense decreased marsh soil stability. Nitrogen concentrations (sawgrass) marshes vulnerable to invasion by native Ty- from the Chassahowitzka River and other nearby pha spp. (cattails) in a manner similar to that in South springs are already 50 times that found in pristine con- Florida marshes (Newman et al. 1998). ditions (Dixon and Estevez 1998). This region has also • experienced marked salt marsh loss and shoreline ero- Industrial pollutants: Prior to 1998, the Fenholloway sion (Raabe et al. 2004). Interactions among the many River was classified as a Class V body of water (des- related factors and the tendency of tidal marsh ecosys- ignated for industrial use), as it received point-source tems to resist disturbances up to a threshold make it pollutants from the Buckeye Foley pulp mill, mining difficult to predict the impacts of increasing nutrients companies, and the City of Perry’s wastewater-treat- in coastal wetland environments (Kirwan and Mego- ment plant (FWC 2004). Fishing and shellfish harvest nigal 2013). were banned there, and more than 5,700 acres (2,300 ha) of seagrass beds were lost off the coast of the Fen- • Mangrove encroachment: Several hard freezes in the holloway River (Mattson et al. 2007). Water quality 1980s killed A. germinans along Cedar Key and the in the river has somewhat improved in recent decades. Springs Coast. Salt marshes, primarily S. alterniflora The river was upgraded to a Class III body of water in 52 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

1998 (FDEP 2012), indicating it is now a water body time series of satellite images and classified by observed with limited recreation, fish consumption, and aquat- types of disturbance (fire, drought, flooding, storm ic life due to human impacts. surge). Several surface elevation tables were used to monitor marsh height and rates of sedimentation (Ladner et Mapping and monitoring efforts al. 2001, Cahoon et al. 2002, Cahoon and Lynch 2003). Thermal infrared mapping enabled the identification of coastal seeps and springs (Raabe et al. 2011), and terrain Coastal wetland elevation monitoring was mapped using an airborne laser swath mapping sys- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region tem (Raabe et al. 2008). Nineteenth-century topographic Inventory and Monitoring Network is conducting coastal sheets were used to compare historical and modern fea- wetland elevation monitoring in 18 national wildlife refug- tures along the coastline (Raabe et al. 2004). The study es in the southeastern United States. This monitoring effort found that salt marsh has been migrating landward along collects data on surface elevation, accretion, pore-water much of the Big Bend, overtaking upland habitat. Mean- salinity, and vegetation at permanent monitoring sites in while, the edge of the marsh has been lost to open water selected priority wetland habitats. The objectives of this at a rate of 3.9 ft (1.2 m) per year, and even more rapidly monitoring program are to observe impacts of sea-level at several locations (Raabe and Stumpf 2015). rise in priority habitats, monitor rates of change in wetland elevation, and forecast longevity of these habitats in Water Resource Inventory and Assessment for refuges within the South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (SALCC). Elevation is measured using the rod the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge surface elevation table method, which uses a permanent The Water Resource Inventory and Assessment for subsurface benchmark to monitor sediment height and Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge summariz- calculate vertical changes in wetland surface (Cahoon et es information on water resources, provides an assess- al. 2002, Cahoon and Lynch 2003). Monitoring locations ment of water resource needs and issues of concern, and along the Big Bend include a J. roemerianus salt marsh makes recommendations for addressing the identified north of the Suwannee River in Lower Suwannee Na- needs and concerns (Thom et al. 2015). Major topics tional Wildlife Refuge, a Cladium jamaicense (sawgrass) addressed include the natural setting of the refuge (to- oligohaline marsh south of the river in Lower Suwan- pography, climate, geology, soils, hydrology), impacts nee NWR, and a J. roemerianus salt marsh in St. Marks of development and climate change, significant water NWR. Baseline data from this vegetation monitoring are resources and associated infrastructure within the ref- available (Boyle et al. 2015). The Southeast Region Inven- uge, past and current water monitoring activities on tory and Monitoring Network is partnering with the U.S. and near the refuge, water quality and quantity infor- Geological Survey (USGS), The Nature Conservancy, the mation, and the State’s regulatory framework for wa- National Park Service (NPS), SALCC, the National Estua- ter use. The greatest concerns identified by the Water rine Research Reserve System (NERRS), and the National Resource Inventory and Assessment are decreased flows Geodetic Survey to accomplish many aspects of this proj- and increased nutrient concentrations in both surface ect. The data are being used in conjunction with similar and groundwater. data collected at permanent monitoring sites maintained by the NPS, NERRS, and USGS to better examine landscape-scale changes resulting from sea-level rise. SWFWMD Tidal Rivers monitoring Coastal wetland characterizations of riverbanks were Gulf of Mexico and Southeast conducted from 1997 to 2002 to support SWFWMD development of guidelines for minimum flows and water Tidal Wetlands Project levels. With coastal vegetation being limited by salinity, The USGS partnered with the University of Florida tidal amplitude, and soil moisture, studies such as that by and the Florida Geological Survey to conduct the Gulf Clewell et al. (2002) have sought to define relationships of Mexico and Southeast Tidal Wetlands Project, which between salinity regimes and the distribution of wetlands used satellite imagery to evaluate changes in Big Bend in tidal rivers. Data collection methods used included marshes (Raabe and Stumpf 1997). Temporal variation identification of plant community distribution from ae- in water level, vegetation land cover, and the normalized rial imagery, shoreline surveys, and vegetation quadrats difference vegetation index (NDVI) were assessed using a for identification of species composition and abundance. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 53

Table 3.1. Recent acreages of salt marshes and photointerpretation vary among years; the most recent mangrove swamps in water management districts in LULC data were created by FDEP’s Bureau of Water- the Big Bend and Springs Coast region (FDOT 1999, shed Restoration. Land cover data are also available NWFWMD 2010, SRWMD 2011, SWFWMD 2011). from 1988 but different methods and classifications were used, therefore the 1988 data are not provided for District/Year Salt marsh Mangrove comparison here (SRWMD 2011). NWFWMD • Each iterative LULC map product created by SWFW- 1994–1995 20,946 0 MD is an update to the previous map. Features in 1-foot 2004 20,410 0 color infrared imagery are photo-interpreted at a scale 2006–2007 20,619 0 of 1:8,000. After the review of newly acquired imagery 2009–2010 20,455 0 source data, updates and changes to map line work are SRWMD conducted using on-screen digitizing techniques, at a 1994–1995 67,104 19 scale of 1:6,000. SWFWMD’s LULC mapping standards require wetland features to be at least 0.5 acre (0.2 ha) in 2004 63,357 101 area to be classified in the map (SWFWMD 2011). 2006–2008 65,772 103 2010–2011 64,672 110 National Wetlands Inventory mapping SWFWMD 1990 54,871 435 A note of caution should be made regarding the Na- tional Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping and all uses 1994 54,090 418 of NWI maps for mapping, analysis, and models in this 1999 54,097 596 region. The boundary between salt marshes and upland 2004 54,135 600 forest communities in the Big Bend and Springs Coast is 2005 54,116 604 frequently classified as the Cowardin et al.’s 1987 classi- 2006 54,109 604 fications of E2FO3 (estuarine intertidal forested broad- 2007 54,092 604 leaved evergreen wetland) or E2SS3 (estuarine intertidal 2008 53,749 1,035 scrub-shrub broad-leaved evergreen) (NWI 2014), categories often interpreted by users as mangrove. In much of 2009 52,815 1,035 Florida these categories are indeed used to identify man- 2010 52,620 1,034 grove swamps, but in the Big Bend mangrove swamps do 2011 52,442 1,033 not appear along the landward salt marsh boundary. The vegetation composition of this boundary, commonly referred to as a transition, includes salt-tolerant scrub and Water management district mapping marsh, cabbage palms, pine, wetland forested mix, and mixed scrub/shrub wetland (Williams et al. 1999, Raabe The three water management districts in this region et al. 2004, SRWMD 2011). The erroneous interpretation (NWFWMD, SRWMD, and SWFWMD) conduct periodic of a marsh-to-forest transition zone as mangrove pro- land use/land cover (LULC) mapping at regular intervals in duces misleading results in subsequent applications (e.g. their jurisdictions (Figure 3.2). The features delineated in SLAMM models), where expansion of intertidal habitat LULC maps are categorized into saltwater marsh or man- into coastal forest is interpreted as expansion of mangrove swamp classifications according to the Florida Land groves (Warren Pinnacle 2011). This type of error propa- Use and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) (FDOT gation must be searched for and remedied. 1999). Some of the variability between sampling years (Fig- ure 3.4, Table 3.1) is likely due to refinement of sampling methods and variation in resolution of aerial photography. Recommendations for protection, management, and monitoring • NWFWMD LULC data sets are based on aerial or- thoimagery and published at 1:24,000 (1 in. = 2000 ft) • Mangroves continue to expand their range and en- scale. The data files were created by FDEP’s Bureau of croach upon salt marsh habitat in the Big Bend and Watershed Restoration (NWFWMD 2010). Springs Coast. This expansion and proliferation may • SRWMD LULC data sets are also based on aerial or- start as individual trees surrounded by salt marsh, yet thoimagery. Data scales and agencies that conducted current land classification techniques are generally 54 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

based on predominant vegetation types rather than RD, Stelly C, Stephenson G, Hensel P. 2002. High- individual plants. This gap necessitates monitoring precision measurements of wetland sediment with the use of presence/absence techniques or biomass elevation: II. The rod surface elevation table. Journal change rather than traditional vegetation classification of Sedimentary Research 72:734–739. categories to accurately track mangroves in this region. Cahoon DR, Lynch JC. 2003. Surface elevation table • The rate of landward migration compensates for the website. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, rate of loss and erosion along the shore (Raabe and Maryland. www.pwrc.usgs.gov/set/, accessed May Stumpf 2015). Land purchases for conservation should 2015. be aimed at linking habitats and providing room for Cavanaugh KC, Kellner JR, Forde AJ, Gruner DS, Parker landward migration, requiring coordination between JD, Rodriguez W, Feller IC. 2014. Poleward expansion state, federal, and local conservation managers. of mangroves is a threshold response to decreased frequency of extreme cold events. Proceedings of • Protection and management of coastal wetlands must the National Academy of Sciences of the USA incorporate watershed and groundwater management, 111:723–727. including the monitoring of water quantity and quality. Clewell AF, Flannery MS, Janicki SS, Eisenwerth RD, Sufficient freshwater flow is necessary to maintain sa- Montgomery RT. 2002. An analysis of vegetation- linity gradients along the coast and moderate saltwater salinity relationships in seven tidal rivers on the coast inundation. Although the ultimate impacts of eutro- of west-central Florida. Technical report (draft). phication on coastal wetland vegetation are difficult to Southwest Florida Water Management District predict (Kirwan and Megonigal 2013), efforts to reduce Technical Report, Brooksville. www.swfwmd. nutrients are recommended to prevent ecosystem-level state.fl.us/projects/mfl/reports/Chass_Appendices/ alterations to the stability and biomass allocation of Section_11.6.pdf, accessed May 2015. emergent estuarine vegetation. Coultas CL, Hsieh YP. 1997. Ecology and management • Preventing the introduction and spread of invasive spe- of tidal marshes: a model from the Gulf of Mexico. cies requires active monitoring and the early detection St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. and removal of present exotic vegetation. Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, Laroe ET. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater • Due to the large area and relatively wild status of the habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. region, monitoring based upon vegetation and wetness Fish and Wildlife Service, Jamestown, North Dakota. indices derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper data www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Classification- may be more efficient than traditional land cover classi- of-Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats-of-the-United- fications. This process eliminates errors associated with States.pdf, accessed May 2015. classification and enables rapid identification of regions Deegan LA, Johnson DS, Warren RS, Peterson BJ, with unusual changes that can then be further investi- Fleeger JW, Fagherazzi S, Wollheim WM. 2012. gated with high-resolution data. The use of high-res- Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. olution Digital Elevation Model maps derived from Nature 490:388–392. LiDAR data may also be useful when assessing current Dixon LK, Estevez ED. 1998. Chassahowitzka National impacts or predicting responses to vegetation changes Wildlife Refuge status and trends. Mote Marine associated with sea-level rise. Laboratory Technical Report no. 579. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Air Quality Branch, Sarasota, Works cited Florida. isurus.mote.org/techreps/579/579.pdf, accessed May 2015. Boyle, MF, Rankin NM, Stanton, WD. 2015. Vegetation Florida Department of Environmental Protection. of coastal wetland elevation monitoring sites on 2003. Water quality assessment report: Suwannee national wildlife refuges in the South Atlantic (including Aucilla, Coastal, Suwannee and geography: baseline inventory report. U.S. Fish and Waccasassa basins in Florida). Florida Department of Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta. www. Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. fws.gov/southeast/pdf/report/vegetation-of-coastal- Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2012. wetland-elevation-monitoring-sites-on-nwrs-in-the- Surface water quality standards: classes, uses, criteria. south-atlantic-geography-baseline-inventory.pdf, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, accessed October 2015. Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/classes. Cahoon DR, Lynch JC, Perez BC, Segura B, Holland htm, accessed May 2015. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 55

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. gulfsci.usgs.gov/suwannee/ 2014. Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve reports/KatzRaabeWP.pdf, accessed May 2015. management plan. Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Kirwan ML, Megonigal JP. 2013. Tidal wetland stability Preserve, Crystal River, Florida. publicfiles.dep.state. in the face of human impacts and sea level rise. fl.us/CAMA/plans/aquatic/Big_Bend_Seagrasses_ Nature 504:53–60. Aquatic_Preserve_Management_Plan.pdf, accessed Kurz H, Wagner K. 1957. Tidal marshes of the Gulf May 2015. and Atlantic coasts of northern Florida and Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Charleston, South Carolina. Florida State University Florida land use, cover and forms classification Studies No. 24, Tallahassee. catalog.hathitrust.org/ system, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, Record/009080958, accessed May 2015. Thematic Mapping Section. www.dot.state. Ladner J, Hoenstine RW, Dabous A, Cross B. Coastal fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/ wetlands study 2001: Big Bend–Atlantic coast fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed May 2015. regions. Florida Geological Survey Department of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Environmental Protection 11th annual report. 2004. A conceptual management plan for Big Bend Leonard LA, Hine AC, Luther ME, Stumpf RP, Wright Wildlife Management Area 2004–2014, Taylor and EE. 1995. Sediment transport processes in a west- Dixie counties, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife central Florida open marine marsh tidal creek: the Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. role of tides and extra tropical storms. Estuarine Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Coastal and Shelf Science 41:225–248. 2014. Nonnative species; Florida’s exotic fish and Light HM, Darst MR, Lewis LJ, Howell DA. 2002. wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Hydrology, vegetation, and soils of riverine and Commission, Tallahassee. myfwc.com/ tidal floodplain forests of the lower Suwannee River, wildlifehabitats/nonnatives/, accessed May 2015. Florida, and potential impacts of flow reductions. Harrington D, Maddox G, Hicks R. 2010. Florida U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1656A. springs initiative monitoring network report and fl.water.usgs.gov/PDF_files/pp1656A_light.pdf, recognized sources of nitrate. Florida Department accessed May 2015. of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. www. Livingston RJ. 1990. Inshore marine habitats. Pp. dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/springs_ 549–573 in Meyers RJ, Ewel JJ (eds.) Ecosystems of report_102110.pdf, accessed May 2015. Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Hoffman BA, Dawes CJ. 1997. Vegetational and abiotic Lugo AE, Patterson-Zucca CP. 1977. The impact of analysis of the salterns of mangals and salt marshes low temperature stress on mangrove structure and of the west coast of Florida. Journal of Coastal growth. Topical Ecology 18:149–161. Research 13:147–154. Marella RL. 2014. Water withdrawals, use, and trends Hornsby D, Ceryak R. 2000. Springs of the Aucilla, in Florida, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Coastal, and Waccasassa basins in Florida. Report Investigations Report 2014–5088, Reston, Virginia. WR00-03. Suwannee River Water Management pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5088/, accessed May 2015. District, Live Oak, Florida. www.srwmd.state.fl.us/ Mattson RA, Frazer TK, Hale J, Blitch S, Ahijevych DocumentCenter/Home/View/684, accessed May L. 2007. Florida Big Bend. Pp. 171–188 in Handley 2015. L, Altsman D, Demay R (eds.) Seagrass status and Kangas PC, Lugo AE. 1990. The distribution of trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002. mangroves and saltmarsh in Florida. Journal of Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287. U.S. Tropical Ecology 31:32–39. Geological Survey. pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/pdf/ Katz BG, Hornsby HD, Bohlke JF, Mokray MF. 1999. FloridaBigBend.pdf, accessed May 2015. Sources and chronology of nitrate contamination National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. in spring waters, Suwannee River Basin, Florida. 2016. Mean sea level trend 8727520: Cedar Key, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4252. U.S. Florida. tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_ Geological Survey, Tallahassee. fl.water.usgs.gov/ station.shtml?stnid=8727520, accessed May 2016. PDF_files/wri99_4252_katz.pdf, accessed May 2015. National Wetland Inventory. 2014. National wetlands Katz BG, Raabe EA. 2005. Suwannee River basin and inventory online mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife estuary: an integrated watershed science program. Service. www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, Open-File Report 2005-1210. U.S. Geological Survey, accessed May 2015. 56 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Newman S, Schuette J, Grace JB, Rutchey K, Fontaine T, usgs.gov/unnumbered/70114013/report.pdf, accessed Reddy KR, Pietruchka M. 1998. Factors influencing May 2015. cattail abundance in the northern Everglades. Aquatic Raabe EA, Stumpf RP. 2015. Expansion of tidal marsh Botany 60:265–280. in response to sea level rise: Gulf Coast of Florida, Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2010. USA. Estuaries and Coasts 39:145–157. GIS data directory. www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/data- Raabe EA, Stumpf RP, Marth NJ, Shrestha RL. publications/gis-mapping/, accessed May 2015. 1996. A precise vertical network: establishing new Orlando SPJ, Rozas LP, Ward GH, Klein CJ. 1993. orthometric heights with static surveys in Florida Salinity characteristics of Gulf of Mexico estuaries. tidal marshes. Surveying and Land Information National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Systems 56:200–211. Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Rupert FR, Arthur JD. 1997. Geology and geomor Assessment, Silver Spring, Maryland. docs.lib. phology. Pp. 35–52 in Coultas CL, Hsieh YP (eds.) noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NOS/ORCA/National_ Ecology and management of tidal marshes: a model Esturarine_Inventory/Gulf_of_Mexico_1993.pdf, from the Gulf of Mexico. St. Lucie Press, Delray accessed May 2015. Beach, Florida. Pittman JR, Hatzell HH, Oaksford ET. 1997. Spring Seavey JR, Pine WE III, Frederick P, Sturmer L, Berrigan contributions to water quantity and nitrate loads M. 2011. Decadal changes in oyster reefs in the Big in the Suwannee River during base flow in July Bend of Florida’s Gulf coast. Ecosphere 2:1–14. 1995. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97- Smith C. 2012. Drought has Cedar Key scrambling 4152. U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. to provide fresh water. Gainesville Sun, June 20, waterinstitute.ufl.edu/suwannee-hydro-observ/pdf/ 2012, Gainesville, Florida. www.gainesville.com/ Pittman-et-a-1995-springs-contribution-of-N-during- article/20120620/ARTICLES/120629937, accessed base-flow.pdf, accessed May 2015. May 2015. Raabe E, Stonehouse D, Ebersol K, Holland K, Robbins Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2001. L. 2011. Detection of coastal and submarine The hydrology and water quality of select springs in discharge on the Florida Gulf Coast with an the Southwest Florida Water Management District. airborne thermal-infrared mapping system. The www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/reports/springs. Professional Geologist 48:42–49. pubs.er.usgs.gov/ pdf, accessed May 2015. publication/70039643, accessed May 2015. Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2011. Raabe EA, Harris MS, Shrestha RL, Carter WE. GIS, maps and survey: shapefile library. www. 2008. Derivation of ground surface and vegetation swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/gis/layer_library/, accessed in a coastal Florida wetland with airborne laser May 2015. technology. Open-File Report 2008-1125. U.S. Stevens PW, Fox SL, Montague CL. 2006. The interplay Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, Florida. pubs.usgs. between mangroves and salt marshes at the transition gov/of/2008/1125/OFR_2008_1125/OFR_2008_1125. between temperate and subtropical climate in pdf, accessed May 2015. Florida. Wetlands Ecology and Management Raabe EA, Streck AE, Stumpf RP. 2004. Historic 14:435–444. topographic sheets to satellite imagery: a Stout JP. 1984. The ecology of irregularly flooded salt methodology for evaluating coastal change in marshes of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico: a Florida’s Big Bend tidal marsh. U.S. Geological Survey community profile. Biological Report 85(7.1). U.S. Open File Report 02-211, St. Petersburg, Florida. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-211/pdf/OFR_02-211.pdf, Dauphin Island, Alabama. www.nwrc.usgs.gov/ accessed May 2015. techrpt/85-7-1.pdf, accessed May 2015. Raabe EA, Stumpf RP. 1997. Assessment of acreage and Stumpf RP, Haines JW. 1998. Variations in tidal level vegetation change in Florida’s Big Bend tidal wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico and implications for tidal using satellite imagery. Pp. I84–I93 in Proceedings of wetlands. Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Science the 4th International Conference on Remote Sensing 46:165–173. for Marine and Coastal Environments: Technology Suwanee River Water Management District. 2011. and Applications, 17–19 March 1997, Orlando, GIS data directory. www.srwmd.state.fl.us/index. Florida, USA, Volume 2. Environmental Research aspx?NID=319, accessed May 2015. Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. pubs. Thom TA, Hunt KJ, Faustini J. 2015. Water Resource Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 57

Inventory and Assessment (WRIA): Lower Regional contacts Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge, Dixie and Levy counties, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kris Kaufman, NOAA Restoration Center, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. ecos.fws.gov/ [email protected] ServCat/DownloadFile/44772?Reference=44065, Nicole M. Rankin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accessed May 2015. [email protected] Warren Pinnacle Consulting Inc. 2011. Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM 6) to Lower Suwannee NWR. Prepared for the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, Corpus Christi, Texas. warrenpinnacle.com/prof/SLAMM/USFWS/ SLAMM_Lower_Suwannee.pdf, accessed May 2015. Williams K, Ewel KC, Stumpf RP, Putz FE, Workman TW. 1999. Sea level rise and coastal forest retreat on the west coast of Florida, USA. Ecology 80:2045–2063. Wolfe SH (ed.). 1990. An ecological characterization of the Florida Springs Coast: Pithlachascotee to Waccasassa rivers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 90(21), Tallahassee. www.data. boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3748.pdf, accessed May 2015. Wright EE, Hine AC, Goodbred SL Jr, Locker SD. 2005. The effect of sea-level and climate change on the development of a mixed siliciclastic-carbonate, deltaic coastline: Suwannee River, Florida, USA. Journal of Sedimentary Research 75:621–635. U.S. Census. 2015. United States Census Bureau state & county quick facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts, accessed May 2015. U.S. Geological Survey. 2013. National water information system: web interface. waterdata.usgs. gov/nwis, accessed May 2015.

General references and additional regional information Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Tidal Wetlands Project: coastal.er.usgs.gov/wetlands/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Inventory and Monitoring Network coastal wetland elevation monitoring: www.fws.gov/southeast/ IMnetwork/abiotic.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Network Southeast Region: www.fws.gov/southeast/ IMnetwork/index.html Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative compilation of Gulf of Mexico surface elevation tables: gcpolcc.databasin.org/maps/ new#datasets=6a71b8fb60224720b903c770b8a93929 58 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 4 Tampa Bay

Lindsay Cross, Florida Wildlife Corridor Kris Kaufman, NOAA Restoration Center Ed Sherwood, Tampa Bay Estuary Program William Ellis, Saint Leo University Chris Miller, Saint Leo University Frank Courtney, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the Region and Tampa reduced nutrient outflow into the bay and reversed trends in eutrophication (Greening and Janic- The Tampa Bay region is located on the west-central ki 2006, Holland et al. 2006). Improvements in water coast of Florida. It includes Tampa Bay proper, Florida’s quality, coupled with habitat restoration and protection largest open-water estuary, which has a surface area of ap- plans, have increased the overall health of Tampa Bay proximately 400 mi2 (1,036 km2) at high tide (Figure 4.1). ecosystems, but the growing population requires that The bay is fed by a watershed of roughly 2,600 mi2 (6,730 management plans be adaptive (Holland et al. 2006, km2) with four major rivers (Hillsborough, Alafia, Mana- Yates and Greening 2011). tee, and Little Manatee) and more than 100 small tributar- Tampa Bay and its shoreline contain a diverse array ies. The watershed includes large portions of Hillsborough, of habitats, flora, and fauna due to the bay’s large size Pinellas, and Manatee counties, as well as smaller portions and wide salinity gradient. Coastal or estuarine wetlands of Pasco and Polk counties. The area is highly urbanized, include mangroves, salt barrens, and polyhaline, mesoha- and the population around Tampa Bay has quintupled line, and oligohaline salt marshes. The system is dominat- since the 1950s. Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Manatee coun- ed by mangroves, which has made up 67–75% of its total ties were estimated to be home to more than 2.6 million estuarine wetland coverage since the 1950s (Figures 4.2 people in 2015, and the population continues to grow (U.S. and 4.3). Salt marshes made up 22–28% of coastal wet- Census 2015). Although the area is highly developed, it also lands, and salt barrens making up the remaining 2–6%. In includes many city, county, and state parks and preserves, recent decades the proportion of mangroves has steadily aquatic preserves, and national wildlife refuges. increased as the proportion of salt marsh and salt barren The demands of a growing population have altered coverage have decreased (Robison 2010). local hydrology due to freshwater withdrawal from trib- Coastal wetlands generally declined in coverage from utaries and the construction of water reservoirs (Yates the 1950s to the early 1990s (Table 4.1, Figure 4.2). Since and Greening 2011). The concomitant increase in the then, land acquisition and habitat restoration, undertaken extent of impervious surfaces in the watershed has re- primarily by public agencies but also by nongovernmen- sulted in increased runoff, transporting more nutrients tal entities, have led to modest gains in habitat acreage and other pollutants into the bay. After Tampa Bay’s (Figure 4.2). The largest increases in terms of both acre- deteriorating health became evident in the 1970s, up- age and proportion have been seen in mangrove coverage; graded sewage-treatment requirements in St. Petersburg increases in salt marsh acreage and proportion have been Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 59

Figure 4.1. Mangrove and salt marsh coverage in the Tampa Bay region. Data source: SWFWMD 2011 land use/ land cover data, based on FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SWFWMD 2011). 60 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

ren habitat types until 2004, but Robison (2010) estimated extent of salt barren habitat for 1995 and 1999 from color photography. Table 4.5 presents acreage and proportional changes in acreage of emergent saltwater vegetation over various time periods in each bay segment of Tampa Bay.

Clearwater Harbor and St. Joseph Sound The northwestern portion of Pinellas County lies outside the Tampa Bay watershed (Figure 4.1). This region includes both salt marshes and mangroves in Clearwater Harbor to the south and St. Joseph Sound to the north (Table 4.6). Aerial photography from 1942 was used to establish land cover from that year; about 65% of the watershed had still not been developed (Janicki and Atkins Figure 4.2. Baywide acreages of emergent saltwater 2011b). The largest loss of coastal wetlands in this area vegetation, 1950–2011. See Table 4.1 for data sources. has been around the city of Clearwater, a result of extensive coastal development. In St. Joseph Sound, Clear- moderate. Salt barren acreage remained relatively steady water Harbor North, and Clearwater Harbor South, 57, from 1995 to 2011, but it remains roughly one-third that 67, and 98%, respectively, of mangrove habitats have now estimated for the 1950s. Status and trends for coastal wet- been lost (Janicki and Atkins 2011a, 2011b). Much of the remaining salt marsh and mangrove habitats in this area lands are explored by habitat type and bay segment in are found on several undeveloped barrier islands (Calade- Tables 4.2–4.4 and Figure 4.3. Land cover classifications si, Honeymoon, Three Rooker, and Anclote). Because the used for the 1950s data vary somewhat from Florida Land region is so highly developed, management efforts focus Use and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) catego- on preserving the wetland habitats that remain. ries (FDOT 1999). See Lewis and Robison (1995) for a full explanation of land cover classifications and methods for Ecosystem services provided by estimating coastal wetland extent in 1950 and 1990. Land use was first mapped by the Southwest Florida Tampa Bay wetlands Water Management District (SWFWMD) in 1990, but Coastal wetlands are extremely valuable to the Tampa mapping methodologies have varied over time (see Robi- Bay region. A project team from the U.S. Environmental son 2010). SWFWMD did not systematically map salt bar- Protection Agency Gulf Breeze Laboratory has performed extensive monitoring and mod- Table 4.1. Historical acreage estimates for Tampa Bay coastal wetlands. eling to determine the value of Year Data source Mangroves Salt marsh Salt barren Total ecological services provided by 1900* Lewis and Robison 1995 16,538 16,200 1,012 33,750 the suite of habitats in Tampa 1950 Lewis and Robison 1995 15,894 6,621 1,371 23,886 Bay and its watershed (Russel 1990 Lewis and Robison 1995 13,764 4,117 877 18,758 et al. 2011, Russel and Greening 1995 Robison 2010 14,760 4,343 445 19,548 2015). Notable valuable services of wetlands include improvement 1999 Robison 2010 14,595 4,478 469 19,542 of water quality, flood protection, 2004 SWFWMD 15,149 4,513 492 20,154 and improvement of air quality 2005 SWFWMD 15,127 4,527 492 20,146 and aesthetics. In addition to pro- 2006 SWFWMD 15,246 4,478 482 20,206 viding essential habitat and food 2007 SWFWMD 14,511 4,390 446 19,347 sources for many estuarine spe- 2008 SWFWMD 15,242 4,477 490 20,209 cies, wetlands also provide such 2009 SWFWMD 15,462 4,543 515 20,520 ecosystem services as sequester- 2010 SWFWMD 15,495 4,640 501 20,636 ing atmospheric carbon (Moyer 2011 SWFWMD 15,500 4,603 501 20,604 et al. 2016) and reducing nitrogen in wastewater and stormwater *1900 values based on estimated 1950s proportions, as described in Lewis and Robison (1995). Raabe et al. (2012) showed that proportions may have been quite different before 1900. discharges. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 61

Figure 4.3. 2011 extent of coastal wetlands in the Tampa Bay region and acreage changes, 1950–2011, by bay segment. See Table 4.1 for data sources. 62 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Table 4.2. Mangrove acreages in Tampa Bay from 1950–2011, by bay segment.

Middle Lower Old Hillsborough Boca Ciega Terra Ceia Manatee Year Data source Tampa Tampa Total Tampa Bay Bay Bay Bay River Bay Bay Lewis and 1950 3,321 1,112 5,225 2,563 2,143 937 592 15,893 Robison 1995 Lewis and 1990 3,452 751 5,061 2,174 1,121 711 494 13,764 Robison 1995 1995 SWFWMD 3,971 830 5,009 2,095 1,193 775 432 14,305 1999 SWFWMD 3,956 828 5,004 2,096 1,191 762 432 14,269 2004 SWFWMD 4,522 979 5,107 2,135 1,217 763 426 15,149 2005 SWFWMD 4,514 986 5,081 2,136 1,218 766 426 15,127 2006 SWFWMD 4,614 995 5,089 2,127 1,229 765 427 15,246 2007 SWFWMD 4,119 862 5,034 2,116 1,190 765 425 14,511 2008 SWFWMD 4,605 996 5,089 2,132 1,230 764 426 15,242 2009 SWFWMD 4,608 1088 5,210 2,139 1,231 762 424 15,462 2010 SWFWMD 4,610 1093 5,222 2,130 1,243 770 427 15,495 2011 SWFWMD 4,613 1093 5,224 2,131 1,242 770 427 15,500

Table 4.3. Salt marsh acreages in Tampa Bay, 1950–2011, by bay segment.

Middle Lower Boca Old Hillsborough Terra Ceia Manatee Year Data source Tampa Tampa Ciega Total Tampa Bay Bay Bay River Bay Bay Bay Lewis and 1950 1,446 603 2,075 606 274 13 1,604 6,621 Robison 1995 Lewis and 1990 1,150 499 737 389 84 6 1,252 4,117 Robison 1995 1995 SWFWMD 1,206 590 1,041 187 106 13 1,292 4,435 1999 SWFWMD 1,207 596 1,040 187 106 13 1,292 4,441 2004 SWFWMD 1,033 545 1,345 185 84 13 1,308 4,513 2005 SWFWMD 1,035 553 1,354 181 83 13 1,308 4,527 2006 SWFWMD 1,009 537 1,352 178 82 13 1,307 4,478 2007 SWFWMD 1,178 617 981 168 125 13 1,308 4,390 2008 SWFWMD 1,002 535 1,352 183 80 13 1,312 4,477 2009 SWFWMD 1,003 520 1,423 183 80 13 1,321 4,543 2010 SWFWMD 1,005 515 1,427 263 75 13 1,342 4,640 2011 SWFWMD 999 515 1,395 264 75 13 1,342 4,603

“Restore the Balance” Management Plan cludes elected officials and agency representatives at Scientists and resource managers in the Tampa Bay local, regional, state, and national levels. Because the region have developed and adopted habitat restoration master plans were vetted by technical and citizen ad- targets and paradigms as part of the Tampa Bay Hab- visory committees, they are often integrated into the itat Master Plan (Lewis and Robison 1995) and Tam- habitat management plans for other local government pa Bay Habitat Master Plan Update (Robison 2010). partners, such as the SWFWMD, which has incorporat- Production of these documents was coordinated by the ed the restoration goals and projects into the Surface Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). The documents Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan for were adopted by the TBEP’s Policy Board, which in- Tampa Bay (SWFWMD 1999). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 63

Table 4.4. Salt barren acreages in Tampa Bay, 1950–2011, by bay segment. Data not available for 1990–2004 because the SWFWMD did not systematically map salt barren habitat types before 2004.

Old Middle Lower Hillsborough Boca Ciega Terra Ceia Manatee Year Data Source Tampa Tampa Tampa Total Bay Bay Bay River Bay Bay Bay Lewis and 1950 516 195 436 194 14 1 15 1,371 Robison 1995 Lewis and 1990 147 13 533 168 0 6 10 877 Robison 1995 2004 SWFWMD 80 2 309 89 4 5 3 492 2005 SWFWMD 78 2 306 86 4 13 3 492 2006 SWFWMD 58 2 306 93 4 16 3 482 2007 SWFWMD 58 2 271 93 4 16 2 446 2008 SWFWMD 58 2 271 136 4 17 2 490 2009 SWFWMD 58 2 286 144 4 19 2 515 2010 SWFWMD 58 2 282 134 4 19 2 501 2011 SWFWMD 58 2 282 134 4 19 2 501

Quantitative protection and restoration targets have exceeds their 1950s proportion, while the proportions of been established for coastal wetlands as part of the both salt marsh and salt barrens are less than in the 1950s. Tampa Bay management plan under an approach called Quantitative Restore the Balance targets are estab- Restore the Balance. Due to the extensive coastal devel- lished by basing desired habitat ratios on the wetland opment in the watershed, it is not realistic to expect to habitat that has been least impacted. In the Tampa Bay regain habitat acreage that was present in the 1950s. But region, mangroves have actually increased in overall pro- because many fish and wildlife species rely on various portion and so are deemed the least impacted habitat. estuarine habitats throughout their life cycles, Restore Restoration targets can be set for the remaining habitat the Balance attempts to restore historical proportions types by utilizing the 1950s proportion in the equation c/a of estuarine habitats in an attempt to ensure that there = b/x, where x = acreage restoration target for habitat of are no bottlenecks to the life history of any species that interest, a = current acreage of least-impacted habitat, uses Tampa Bay (Morrison et al. 2011). This approach b = 1950s proportion of target habitat, c = 1950s pro- may prove challenging with current trends of mangrove portion of least-impacted habitat (Robison 2010). The expansion, as mangroves frequently overtake salt marsh acreage target becomes the change required to restore the habitat. The impacts of sea-level rise and climate change historical proportion. The critical coastal habitat targets, will also likely influence the relative proportions of hab- as adopted in the Tampa Bay Habitat Master Plan Up- itats in the Tampa Bay area. These impacts, as well as date, are shown in Table 4.7. Opportunistic restoration Restore the Balance and other management strategies, of mangrove habitat is still encouraged, but there is not a will be evaluated in the 2017 Habitat Master Plan Up- numeric restoration target for this habitat. date for Tampa Bay. The Restore the Balance concept establishes targets Mangrove dominance increasing using the 1950s ratio of estuarine habitats. The 1950s were selected as a starting point because they preceded much Mangrove coverage is increasing in Tampa Bay, likely of the extensive development in the watershed (although as a result of climatic changes and hydrologic alterations. Tampa and St. Petersburg were well established). Also, the In previous decades, winter freezes led to mangrove die- first high-quality aerial photographs are available for the offs. Freezes have been much rarer in recent decades and entire watershed in the 1950s, enabling photo-interpreta- mangroves have encroached into areas previously inhab- tion of land cover. Analyses of wetland extent for more ited by salt marshes. Tampa Bay coastal wetlands have recent periods (1990s, 2000s, 2010s) allowed determina- shifted from a salt marsh-dominated system in the 1870s tion of areal coverage and proportion by wetland type. to a mangrove-dominated system (Raabe et al. 2012). Over the past 25 years, mangrove and salt marsh acreage By comparing present-day land cover to historical topo- have increased (Figure 4.2). The proportion of mangroves graphic maps and surveys from the 1870s, Raabe et al. 64 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.38 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2011 2011 −2.24 −0.08 −0.80 −0.60 2010– 2010– % Change % Change 75 13 515 427 770 999 264 2011 2011 2,131 4,613 1,395 1,093 1,242 4,603 1,342 5,224 15,500 2.13 5.39 2.43 2.78 0.52 2.05 0.23 0.00 2.50 2.60 2010 2010 10.85 45.30 −9.64 −2.90 −6.87 −0.28 2005– 2005– % Change % Change 75 13 515 427 770 263 4640 4,610 2010 2010 1,427 1,093 1,243 2,130 1,342 1,005 5,222 15,495 1.91 1.94 6.01 1.54 1.24 0.52 0.00 2.27 14.11 2005 2005 19.08 30.19 −7.21 −1.39 −3.21 1999– 1999– −21.70 −14.25 % Change % Change 13 83 181 766 553 426 986 1,218 4,514 2005 2005 1,035 5,081 1,354 2,136 4,527 1,308 15,127 0.14 1.02 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1999 1999 −1.68 −0.17 −0.10 −0.10 −0.24 −0.38 −0.25 1995– 1995– % Change % Change 13 762 432 187 596 106 828 1292 1,191 1999 1999 3,956 4,441 1,207 1,040 5,004 2,096 1,4269 7.72 3.19 6.42 3.93 9.00 4.87 1995 1995 15.03 26.19 10.52 18.24 41.25 −1.03 −3.63 1990– 1990– 116.67 −51.93 −12.55 % Change % Change 13 432 775 187 106 590 830 1,193 1995 1995 4,435 1,041 3,971 2,095 1,292 5,009 1,206 14,305 3.94 1990 1990 −3.14 1950– 1950– −15.18 −17.25 −37.82 −47.69 −21.95 −24.12 −16.55 −35.81 −13.40 −20.47 −53.85 −32.46 −69.34 −64.48 % Change % Change 6 84 751 711 737 389 494 499 1252 4,117 2,174 1,121 1990 1990 1,150 3,452 5,061 13,764 13 274 937 592 603 606 1604 1,112 2,143 1950 1950 3,321 6,621 2,075 1,446 2,563 5,225 15,893 HB HB Bay Bay MR MR year year SALT MARSH SALT LTB LTB BCB BCB MANGROVES TCB TCB OTB OTB MTB MTB TOTAL TOTAL segment/ segment/ Change in emergent saltwater vegetation in Tampa Bay during Bay different segment. periods, Lewis Change from (1995) inbay compiled Data vegetation by Tampa inand 4.5. saltwater emergent Robison and Table Management District land Water use/land Florida Southwest data (SWFWMD cover HB, Bay; segments: Bay OTB, Hillsborough; 2011). Tampa Old MTB, BCB, Bay; LTB, Little Bay; Boca Ceia MR, Tampa Bay; Ciega TCB,Middle SWFWMD Bay; Manatee Tampa Terra River. didsystematically salt not map typesbarren habitat until 2004. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 65

(2012) determined that the ratio of salt marshes to mangroves has shifted from 86:14 to 25:75. Other estimates 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 place the ratio of marshes to mangroves in Tampa Bay 2011 2010–

% Change closer to 50:50 around 1900 (Lewis and Robison 1995). In either case, the Tampa Bay area is increasingly dominated by mangroves, as has been seen in parts of south Florida 2 4 2 58 19 501 282 134 2011 (Morrison et al. 2011). This trend is expected to continue due to climate change and sea-level rise, which favor mangrove expansion at the expense of other estuarine habitats (Sherwood and Greening 2012, 2014). 1.83 0.00 0.00 2010 55.81 46.15 −7.84 2005– −25.64 −33.33 Mangroves provide many of the same ecosystem % Change services as salt marshes, so mangrove expansion is not necessarily detrimental except for its effects on obligate 2 4 2 58 19 501 282 134

2010 salt marsh species. However this trend does suggest that resource managers must carefully evaluate restoration goals and paradigms such as Restore the Balance to determine if they are still realistic, attainable, and ecologically 2005 1990– 116.67 400.00 −43.90 −84.62 −70.00 −48.81 −42.59 −46.94 appropriate (Raabe et al. 2012, Sherwood and Greening % Change 2012, 2014). If marshes and salt barrens are increasingly squeezed out of existing habitat, managers must also de- 2 4 3 78 86 13 492 306 termine at what cost their long-term survival should be 2005 protected and how to ensure that there is adequate coverage and diversity of coastal habitats to support myriad estuary-dependent species. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1999 1995– % Change Threats to coastal wetlands While coastal wetlands enjoy greater protection due NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1999 to regulations and management priorities adopted in the late 20th century, threats to their short- and long-term survival remain. The dominant threats to coastal wet- NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1995 lands in Tampa Bay include: 1990– % Change • Coastal development: Human population growth and urban sprawl continue in the Tampa Bay area, resulting NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA in direct and indirect impacts on natural shoreline. Lo- 1995 cal, state, and federal permitting agencies require mitigation for impacts to these wetlands, which may differ with project location or conditions. 1990 22.25 1950– −71.51 500.00 −13.40 −33.33 −93.33 −36.03 −100.00 • Hydrologic modifications:Development in the wa- % Change tershed may also indirectly impact coastal wetlands through changes to natural hydrologic regimes. Fresh- 0 6 13 10 147 168 533 877

1990 water flow may be reduced by impoundments or increased due to concentrated runoff from impervious surfaces. Reduced freshwater retention in the watershed leads to lower freshwater flows during the dry 1 14 15 516 195 436 194 1371 1950 season (Robison 2010). Additionally, in the 1950s and 1960s many coastal wetlands in the Tampa Bay region were ditched in an effort to reduce mosquitoes (Morri- son et al. 2011). The mosquito ditches altered tidal flow HB Bay MR year LTB BCB TCB OTB SALT BARREN SALT MTB

TOTAL and sediment elevation, increasing salinity and remov- segment/

Change in emergent saltwater vegetation in Tampa Bay during Bay different segment. periods, Change inbay NA: vegetation by available. Tampa data in not 4.5 (continued). saltwater emergent Table ing uninterrupted habitat gradients in much of the bay. 66 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Table 4.6. 2010 coastal wetland acreages surrounding Clearwater Harbor and St. Joseph Sound. Data from Janicki and Atkins (2011b). St. Joseph Clearwater Clearwater Total Sound Harbor North Harbor South Mainland mangrove 209 3 24 236 Island mangrove 153 390 24 567 Mainland salt marsh 448 3 2 454 Island salt marsh 77 13 0 90

Table 4.7. Protection and restoration targets of coastal wetlands in Tampa Bay under the Restore the Balance initiative (Robison 2010). Protection target Restoration target Total target acreage (2007/2008 acres) (additional acres required) for protection and restoration 15,139 Mangroves 15,139 opportunistically restore (aim to protect existing acreage) Salt marsh 4,395 1,918 6,313 Salt barren 447 840 1,287

• Invasive vegetation: Exotic plants, particularly Schinus Mapping and monitoring efforts terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper) and Casuarina spp. (Australian pines), crowd the upland edges of coastal Water management district mapping wetland habitat. Despite attempts to remove them, it is unlikely that these abundant species will be eradicated To assist in resource management decision-making, from the Tampa Bay area (Holland et al. 2006). It is ille- SWFWMD conducts regional land use and land cover gal to sell or plant Casuarina spp. and S. terebinthifolius (LULC) mapping at regular intervals within its jurisdic- without a permit, and property owners are encouraged tion (SWFWMD 2011). Features in 1-ft color infrared to remove plants of either species when encountered. imagery are photointerpreted at a scale of 1:8,000. After the review of new imagery, updates and changes to map • Climate change and sea-level rise: Climate change im- line work are digitized at a scale of 1:6,000. The features pacts, including sea-level rise and warmer temperatures, delineated in LULC maps are categorized according to are expected to influence long-term wetland extent and FLUCCS categories (FDOT 1999). The coastal wetland condition. In Florida, long-term stations recording sea features of interest here are mangrove swamp (FLUCCS level have measured a rise of about 8 in. (20 cm) in the 6120), saltwater marsh (FLUCCS 6420), and salt flat past 100 years (Mitchum 2011). Rates of sea-level rise (FLUCCS 6600). SWFWMD’s LULC mapping standards are accelerating; South Florida is expected to see sea require that wetland features be at least 0.5 acre (0.2 ha) in levels rise by 32–40 in. (81–102 cm) by 2100 (Mitchum area to be classified in maps. 2011); some estimates of global sea-level rise exceed 6 ft (1.8 m) by 2100 (NOAA 2012). Coastal vegetation is expected to migrate land- Critical Coastal Habitat Assessment ward in response to sea-level rise, but this is only pos- The Critical Coastal Habitat Assessment is a new sible if refugia, undeveloped conserved land, are pres- long-term monitoring program for Tampa Bay that ent adjacent to coastal wetland habitats. But extensive will assess the status, trends, and ecological function urban development in much of the Tampa Bay area of a mosaic of critical coastal habitats. Its purpose is inhibits landward migration. The rate of sea-level to detect habitat changes due to natural and indirect rise, rate of sediment accretion, and availability of ad- anthropogenic impacts, including those resulting from jacent natural land will all determine whether coastal sea-level rise and climate change, and to improve habi- wetlands are able to successfully retain their current tat management (Janicki 2013, Sherwood and Greening position, migrate, or be squeezed out of existing hab- 2012, 2014). To accomplish this, long-term fixed-tran- itat zones. sects were established in 2015–2016 to characterize base- Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 67 line habitat structure (see full description in Chapter 1). obvious discoloration of leaves). The data from the eval- Monitoring will be completed every 3–5 years to detect uation of the images are used to generate GIS maps of trends and assess changes in extent and ecological func- shoreline forest condition, represented as 33-ft (10-m) col- tion of those habitats over time. Transects were estab- or-coded linear shoreline segments. The Pinellas County lished at nine sites around the Tampa Bay watershed in Tampa Bay shoreline from the Skyway Bridge approach areas that have a full complement of emergent tidal wet- to Safety Harbor was recorded and evaluated biannually land communities including mangroves, salt marshes, in 2012 and 2013. In 2014 and beyond, an annual (March- salt barrens, and coastal uplands. A multimedia training May) recording schedule was adopted. Citizens’ groups video will also be produced to aid other programs and have contacted MangroveWatch with requests to expand communities in implementing similar long-term moni- monitoring and mapping in other parts of Tampa Bay toring programs. Updates and documents will be posted including Upper Tampa Bay Park, Cockroach Bay, and at www.tbeptech.org/committees/habitat-partnership. Terra Ceia Bay.

Tidal tributaries project Minimum flows and levels The remaining natural shorelines of tidal tributaries The SWFWMD has been characterizing riverbank in Tampa Bay generally include a mix of emergent salt- vegetation since 1990 to support development of mini- water vegetation. These systems have been identified as mum flows and levels for the tidal portions of the Alafia, prime nursery habitat for a variety of estuarine-depen- Hillsborough, Little Manatee, and Manatee rivers. Data dent fauna. The TBEP first initiated a comprehensive collection methods include shoreline surveys and vegeta- monitoring program in selected Tampa Bay tidal tribution quadrats for identification of species composition taries in 2006 (Sherwood 2008). A large-scale assessment and abundance. A full list of the reports from this project of tidal creeks in Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte may be found at www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/projects/mfl/ Harbor was completed in 2013–2014 (SBEP 2016). The mfl_reports.php. monitoring program included a general characterization of shoreline vegetation and later expanded surveys and Tampa Bay restoration projects habitat assessments throughout the tidal extent of small tidal tributaries in the bay (e.g., www.sarasota.wateratlas. The TBEP tracks success in restoring critical habitats, usf.edu/tidal-stream-assessments). This work will be ex- including salt marshes and mangroves, in the Tampa Bay tended to other tidal tributaries and major rivers entering area and reports the data annually to the U.S. Environmen- the bay as funds become available. tal Protection Agency. These data are also available in a downloadable geospatial format on the Tampa Bay Estu- ary Atlas (www.tampabay.wateratlas.usf.edu/restoration/). MangroveWatch MangroveWatch is a citizen-science initiative estab- Recommendations for protection, lished in Australia by Norm Duke and Jock Mackenzie, of James Cook University (Mackenzie et al. 2016, www. management, and monitoring mangrovewatch.org.au/). Its purpose is to foster citizen • Future wetland mapping and monitoring efforts should awareness and involvement in the management of man- continue current programs, ensuring methodologically groves by enabling nonscientists to easily gather import- consistent, long-term data sets, as well as new initia- ant forest monitoring data. In 2012, students and faculty tives meant to supplement coverage data with more rig- in the biology department at Saint Leo University began orous monitoring of wetland quality. SWFWMD-led using MangroveWatch’s monitoring and mapping tech- LULC analyses are critical tools for identifying regional niques in parts of Tampa Bay. The monitoring is accom- trends in wetlands coverage. It would be advantageous plished by recording a video of the mangroves from a to develop a supplemental monitoring program using small boat running parallel to the shoreline. Geotagged photointerpretation of the LULC or other aerial im- images are extracted from the video (1 image per second agery to assess wetland health, stress, hydrology, and of video) and visually evaluated at Saint Leo for forest disturbances. Smaller-scale changes in health and the characteristics such as canopy completeness, relative den- extent of mangroves should be assessed using rigorous sity of seedlings, evidence of anthropogenic canopy alter- ground-truthing and monitoring. The fixed-location ation, and signs of stress (e.g., dead trees, bare branches, monitoring carried out in the Critical Coastal Habitat 68 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Assessment is a powerful tool for detecting even subtle entities, nongovernmental organizations, companies, changes in habitat condition, but it is limited to selected academic institutions, citizens, and visitors. sites. This program should be expanded to additional • Public-private partnerships should be formed to protect locations, and stable, long-term funding is needed. Cit- or establish habitat on privately owned parcels of land. izen-science projects, such as MangroveWatch, should Such partnerships are especially important, because also be considered as possible sources of long-term, on- public entities’ ability to acquire new lands is limited. the-ground data on habitat quality. Wetland restoration should continue to represent a mix • The previously mentioned Tampa Bay Habitat Master of habitats, elevations, and salinities to ensure better Plans have established several habitat restoration and long-term viability in the face of sea-level rise. When management priorities for Tampa Bay (Lewis and Rob- possible, upland areas adjacent to natural or created ison 1995, Robison 2010): wetlands should also be protected, enabling landward • The concept of developing habitat mosaics that in- migration of coastal wetlands. Restoration persistence corporate numerous habitat types, salinities and ele- in the face of sea-level rise should be tracked using long- vations has been embraced by the management and term, on-the-ground monitoring as well as remote sens- restoration community and has resulted in 1) more ing to better inform future restoration projects. A com- sophisticated restoration projects that are more sim- prehensive monitoring program that takes into account ilar to natural landscapes, 2) additional habitat for wetland ecosystem function would better position re- numerous wildlife species, and 3) habitats that are source managers to modify management regimes when more resilient to disturbances and climate change. impacts to coverage or condition are detected. Finally, results, successes and challenges should be periodical- • The Restore the Balance approach to habitat protec- ly shared within and beyond the Tampa Bay region via tion and restoration seeks to restore and create hab- workshops, conferences, peer-reviewed literature, and itats that have been disproportionately lost, such as site visits. salt marsh and salt barren habitats. The 2010 master plan update (Robison 2010) also advocates for larger restoration projects that incorporate major Works cited hydrological modifications such as re-establishing Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. historical hydrological conditions or using treated Florida land use, cover and forms classification wastewater to hydrate wetlands for the creation or system, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, restoration of salinity gradients and enhancing nu- Thematic Mapping section. www.dot.state.fl.us/ trient removal. Future master plans should focus on surveyingaandmapping/documentsandpubs/ the validity of the Restore the Balance approach and fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed May 2015. existing habitat restoration paradigms. Greening HS, Janicki A. 2006. Toward reversal of • Efforts to systematically map and monitor wetlands, eutrophic conditions in a subtropical estuary: establish measurable restoration targets, develop water quality and seagrass response to nitrogen management recommendations, identify appro- loading reductions in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. priate locations for habitat restoration, and track Environmental Management 38:163–178. progress toward goals have been key components of Holland N, Hoppe MK, Cross L. 2006. Charting regional planning. An evaluation of watershed-wide the course: the comprehensive conservation and land use/land cover changes should be made every 3 management plan for Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay years and an evaluation of habitat restoration and Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida. www. protection targets made every 10 years. tbep.org/about_the_tampa_bay_estuary_program- charting_the_course_management_plan-download_ • Tampa Bay scientific and resource management charting_the_course.html, accessed May 2015. agencies have demonstrated that setting habitat pri- Janicki Environmental Inc. 2013. Tampa Bay critical orities and targets can lead to measurable gains in coastal habitat assessment plan and framework: habitat coverage, despite extensive and continuing implementing the Tampa Bay habitat master development within the watershed. But ensuring the plan update. Prepared for the Tampa Bay Estuary existence of abundant, high-quality emergent saltwa- Program. www.tbeptech.org/DATA/RFP/DRAFT_ ter vegetation in Tampa Bay will require efforts by FINAL_CCHA_REPORT_09132013.pdf, accessed the Tampa Bay community at large including public May 2015. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 69

Janicki Environmental Inc., Atkins. 2011a. Comprehen Maryland. cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/ sive conservation and management plan for Clear NOAA_SLR_r3.pdf, accessed May 2015. water Harbor and Saint Joseph Sound. Prepared for Raabe EA, Roy LC, McIvor CC. 2012. Tampa Bay Pinellas County Department of Environment and coastal wetlands: nineteenth to twentieth century Infrastructure. www.tampabay.wateratlas.usf.edu/ tidal marsh-to-mangrove conversion. Estuaries and upload/documents/CHSJS-CCMP-2012-Final.pdf, Coasts 35:1145–1162. accessed May 2015. Robison D. 2010. Tampa Bay Estuary Program habitat Janicki Environmental Inc., Atkins. 2011b. State of master plan update. Prepared by PBS&J, T ampa. the resource report for Clearwater Harbor and www.tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_PUBS/2009/ Saint Joseph Sound. Prepared for Pinellas County TBEP_06_09_Habitat_Master_Plan_Update_ Department of Environment and Infrastructure. Report_July_2010.pdf, accessed May 2015. www.tampabay.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/ Russel M, Greening H. 2015. Estimating benefits in a documents/State-of-the-Resource-Report-CHSJS- recovering estuary: Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries and web.pdf, accessed May 2015. Coasts 38 (Suppl 1):S9–S18. Lewis RR III, Robison D. 1995. Setting priorities Russel M, Rogers J, Jordan S, Dantin D, Harvey J, for Tampa Bay habitat protection and restora Nestlerode J, Alvarez F. 2011. Prioritizing ecosystem tion: restoring the balance. Prepared by Lewis services research: Tampa Bay demonstration project. Environmental Services Inc. and Coastal Environ Journal of Coastal Conservation 15:647–658. mental Inc., Tampa, Florida. www.tbeptech.org/ Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. 2016. Southwest Florida TBEP_TECH_PUBS/1995/TBEP_09-95Restoring- Tidal Creeks Nutrient Study. Prepared by Janicki Balance.pdf, accessed May 2015. Environmental Inc. and Mote Marine Laboratory. Mackenzie JR, Duke NC, Wood AL. 2016. The Shoreline www.tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_PUBS/2016/ Video Assessment Method (S-VAM): using dynamic TBEP_02_16_SW_FL_Tidal_Creeks_Final_Draft_ hyperlapse image acquisition to evaluate shoreline Report_160121.pdf, accessed March 2016. mangrove forest structure, values, degradation and Sherwood ET (ed.). 2008. Tampa Bay tidal tributary threats. Marine Pollution Bulletin 109:751–763. habitat initiative: integrated summary document. Mitchum GT. 2011. Sea level changes in the southeastern Prepared by Tidal Tributaries Project Team and the United States: past, present, and future. University Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida. of South Florida, Florida Climate Institute, and www.tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_PUBS/2008/ Southeast Climate Consortium. http://floridawca. TBEP_02_08_Tidal_Tributary_Habitat_Initiative_ org/sites/default/files/documents/201108mitchum_ Integrated_Summary_Report.pdf, accessed May 2015. sealevel_0.pdf, accessed May 2015. Sherwood ET, Greening HS. 2012. Critical coastal Morrison G, Robison D, Yates KK. 2011. Chapter 8: habitat vulnerability assessment for the Tampa Habitat protection and restoration. Pp. 239–280 Bay estuary: projected changes to habitats due to in Yates KK, Greening H, Morrison G (eds.). sea level rise and climate change. St. Petersburg, Integrating science and resource management in Florida. www.tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_ Tampa Bay, Florida. Circular 1348, U.S. Geological PUBS/2012/TBEP_03_12_Updated_Vulnerability_ Survey, Reston, Virginia. pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1348/pdf/, Assessment_082012.pdf, accessed May 2015. accessed May 2015. Sherwood ET, Greening HS. 2014. Potential impacts Moyer RP, Radabaugh KR, Powell CE, Bociu I, and management implications of climate change Chappel AR, Clark BC, Crooks S, Emmett-Mattox on Tampa Bay estuary critical coastal habitats. S. 2016. Quantifying carbon stocks for natural Environmental Management 53:401–415. and restored mangroves, salt marshes and salt Southwest Florida Water Management District. barrens in Tampa Bay. Appendix C. Pp. 119–158 in 1999. Tampa Bay Surface Water Improvement and Tampa Bay blue carbon assessment: Summary of Management (SWIM) plan. Southwest Florida Water findings. Tampa, Florida. www.estuaries.org/images/ Management District, Tampa. www.swfwmd.state. Blue_Carbon/Tampa-Bay-Blue-Carbon-Assessment- fl.us/files/database/site_file_sets/34/tampabay.pdf, Report-final_June2016.pdf accessed May 2015. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2011. 2012. Global sea level rise scenarios for the United GIS, maps & survey: shapefile library. www.swfwmd. States National Climate Assessment. Silver Spring, state.fl.us/data/gis/layer_library/, accessed May 2015. 70 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 2014. Economic valuation of Tampa Bay. St. Petersburg, Florida. www. tbrpc.org/eap/pdfs/Economic_Valuation_of_Tampa_ Bay_Estuary_July2014.pdf, accessed May 2015. U.S. Census. 2015. United States Census Bureau state & county quick facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts/, accessed May 2015. Yates KK, Greening H. 2011. An introduction to Tampa Bay. Pp. 1–16 in Yates KK, Greening H, Morrison G (eds.). Integrating science and resource management in Tampa Bay, Florida. Circular 1348. U.S. Geological Survey. pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1348/, accessed May 2015.

General references and additional regional information Lewis RR III, Estevez ED. 1988. The ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: an estuarine profile. Biological Report 85(7.18), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tampa. www. nwrc.usgs.gov/techrpt/85-7-18.pdf, accessed May 2015. MangroveWatch: www.mangrovewatch.org.au/ Southwest Florida Water Management District Land Use/Land Cover shapefiles: www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/ data/gis/layer_library/category/physical_dense Tampa Bay Estuary Program Technical Publications: www.tbeptech.org/data/tech-pubs Tampa Bay Restoration Projects: www.tampabay. wateratlas.usf.edu/restoration/ Tidal Stream Assessment Project: www.sarasota. wateratlas.usf.edu/tidal-stream-assessments U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tampa Bay Ecosystem Services: archive.epa.gov/ged/tbes/web/ html/index.html Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative compilation of Gulf of Mexico Surface Elevation Tables (SETS): gcpolcc.databasin.org/maps/ new#datasets=6a71b8fb60224720b903c770b8a93929

Regional contacts Lindsay Cross, Florida Wildlife Corridor, [email protected] Kris Kaufman, NOAA Restoration Center, [email protected] Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 71

Chapter 5 Sarasota Bay

Jay Leverone, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Jon Perry, Janicki Environmental Kris Kaufman, NOAA Restoration Center Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the region rate of loss was greatest from 1950 through 1975 at an average of 40 acres (16 ha) per year; rates of wetland loss The Sarasota Bay region extends from Anna Maria decreased to 20 acres (8 ha) per year from 1975 through Sound in the north to Venice Inlet in the south (Figure 1990. Losses were greatest in the Anna Maria Island, Sis- 5.1). It includes Sarasota Bay proper, Palma Sola Bay in ter Keys, and Blackburn Bay regions. The average size of Manatee County, and a series of smaller, contiguous bays wetlands also drastically decreased to 5.6 acres (2.3 ha) to the south (Roberts, Little Sarasota, and Blackburn during this time (SBEP 1992). Bays; Figure 5.2). The bay connects with Tampa Bay to Urban development in the cities of Sarasota and the north through Anna Maria Sound and the Gulf of Bradenton and on the barrier island communities has Mexico through three passes: Longboat, New, and Big resulted in significant losses of coastal wetlands and an Sarasota passes. Sarasota Bay is not a classic estuary un- overwhelming hardening of shorelines in this region. der the influence of a major river, but rather a coastal la- Tourism drives the economy of Sarasota County and is goon bounded by barrier islands. Phillippi Creek, which the second-largest economic sector in Manatee County drains into Roberts Bay, is the largest of 16 tidal tributar- (SBEP 2007). Approximately 25% of the area’s popula- ies that drain into the bay. Sarasota Bay has 52 mi2 (135 tion is seasonal; this seasonal proportion reaches 70% on km2) of open water and a watershed comprising 150 mi2 the barrier islands (SBEP 2007). Rapid population growth (390 km2) (SBEP 2007). and coastal development have taken their toll on Sarasota Sarasota Bay first acquired its present shape 5,000 years Bay ecosystems. Coastal development replaced mangrove ago, when offshore sand bars became barrier islands (SBEP swamps and natural shorelines with buildings and sea- 1992). Wetlands appeared on these barrier islands and the walls; more than 100 mi (160 km) of seawalls are present mainland shoreline 3,500 years ago. While salt marshes are today around Sarasota Bay (SBEP 2010). Increased coast- present in the greater Sarasota Bay area, mangrove swamps al runoff and poor wastewater management resulted in make up more than 90% of coastal wetlands and often poor water quality in the bay due to additional loading overtake herbaceous coastal habitats. Rhizophora man- of sediment, nutrients, and pollutants. In the late 1980s, gle (red mangrove) and Avicennia germinans (black man- Sarasota Bay had reduced bivalve and fish harvests and grove) are the most abundant mangrove species and domi- diminished extent of seagrass beds (SBEP 2010). nate 50% of the tidal wetland vegetation (SBEP 1992). The turning point for Sarasota Bay came in 1989, In 1950, the Sarasota Bay watershed comprised when the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program (SBEP) was about 4,104 acres (1,660 ha) of tidal wetlands; the av- formed and the community came together to improve erage area of each wetland was about 22 acres. Wet- water and habitat quality in the bay. Extensive stud- land acreage decreased 38% (1,609 acres/651 ha) from ies were compiled in the 1992 Framework for Action, 1950 to 1990 (SBEP 1992). Much of this loss was due to which also outlined goals and recommendations for dredge-and-fill operations in the 1950s and 1960s. The improving the bay (SBEP 1992). Key focus areas in- 72 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 5.1. Mangrove and salt marsh coverage in the Sarasota Bay region. Data source: SWFWMD 2011 land use/ land cover data, based on FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SWFWMD 2011). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 73

Figure 5.2. Sarasota Bay proper and surrounding bays with current (2011) extent of emergent saltwater vegetation and salt flats. Data source: SWFWMD 2011. cluded improving water clarity, seagrass extent, shore- and protection. The goal of the wetlands program was line habitats, fisheries, stormwater quality, and overall to restore at least 18 acres (7.3 ha) of intertidal wetlands management and access to the bay. As a result of large- and 11 acres (4.5 ha) of freshwater wetlands annually scale community efforts and regulations, nitrogen pol- (SBEP 1995, SBEP 2010). Since 1995, 1,550 acres (627 lution entering the bay has decreased 64% since 1989 ha) of intertidal wetlands in Sarasota Bay has been re- and nitrogen loading from wastewater has decreased stored (SBEP 2014). The Five Year Habitat Restoration 95% (SBEP 2010). Plans (Scheda 2010, Scheda 2016) were also developed as The status of Sarasota Bay wetlands was assessed a planning guide to be used by the SBEP and its partners as part of the 1992 Framework for Action (SBEP 1992). to identify, prioritize, and implement restoration proj- Although habitat was lost to development, the wetlands ects throughout the watershed. that remained were found to be in fairly good condition. Table 5.1 and Figure 5.3 show a slight increase in total Larger wetlands (those greater than 0.5 acre/0.2 ha) were acreage of mangroves mapped after 1990. This increase found to be in better condition than smaller ones (less was due to natural causes, such as conversion of marsh than 0.5 acre/0.2 ha), and wetlands were found to be in to mangrove, and to mangrove restoration efforts. The in- similar condition on the mainland and the barrier islands. crease in coastal wetland habitat from 1999 to 2004 (Fig- Mangrove acreage increased after the establishment ure 5.4) was due primarily to the inclusion of a salt flat of the SBEP and the Framework for Action (Table 5.1, category in Southwest Florida Water Management Dis- Figure 5.3). An early policy of SBEP was to create a trict (SWFWMD) mapping efforts. Salt flats were present mechanism for the restoration and enhancement of wet- before 2004 but had never been mapped. The breakdown lands. To facilitate this policy, SBEP developed a com- of salt marsh, salt flat, and mangrove habitats across the prehensive approach to coastal wetland management regions of the greater Sarasota Bay area (Figure 5.2) is that included monitoring, restoration, enhancement, shown in Table 5.2. 74 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Table 5.1. Recent acreages of mangrove swamps and salt marshes in the Sarasota Bay region. Data source: SWFWMD 2011. Year Mangrove Salt marsh 1990 2,204 115 1994 2,309 104 1999 2,301 106 2004 2,355 106 2005 2,355 100 2006 2,345 100 2007 2,323 99 2008 2,330 97 2009 2,333 94 2010 2,337 92 Figure 5.3. Changes in acreages of mangrove swamps and salt marshes in 2011 2,337 92 the Sarasota Bay region. Data source: SWFWMD 2011.

Threats to coastal wetlands • Invasive vegetation: Invasive plant species, such as Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper) and Casu- • Climate change and sea-level rise: Sea-level rise and arina spp. (Australian pines), thrive on the additional coastal development are, perhaps, the most significant elevation provided by spoil piles, enabling them to en- stresses to remaining coastal wetlands, although their croach into coastal wetland habitat (SBEP 1992). The impacts will be felt on differing time scales. The high altered hydrology and elevation from mosquito-ditch- degree of coastal development along Sarasota Bay re- ing and spoil piles have facilitated the encroachment of stricts landward migration of coastal wetland habitats invasive nonnative species into disturbed areas. in response to sea-level rise, emphasizing the need to • Mangrove trimming: Landowners along Sarasota Bay conserve remaining coastal upland habitat. The high frequently trim or prune mangroves to maintain a wa- proportion of seawalls and other hardened shorelines terfront view. In 1992, top-down pruning, or hedging, will prevent this landward migration, which will likely was found to be the prevalent practice; the less detri- lead to the loss of mangrove fringes on seawalls. mental practice of selective limb removal was used less • Hydrologic alterations: Historical practices that than 5 percent of the time (SBEP 1992). Forty percent of have affected the hydrology of the Sarasota Bay re- property owners trimmed most or all of the mangroves gion include extensive coastal construction, dredge- on their property. In 1996, the Mangrove Trimming and-fill operations, mosquito-ditching, creation of and Preservation Act provided statewide regulations spoil piles, and the closure of Midnight Pass between on mangrove trimming, affording protection against Siesta Key and Casey Key. A 1990 assessment found extreme mangrove trimming or removal. Assurance that 15 tidal wetlands in the Sarasota area had ex- of proper mangrove trimming, however, still requires tensive ditching, spoil piles, or both (SBEP 1992). homeowner education and enforcement in order to Many of the hydrologic alterations occurred during protect trees from excessive damage. dredge-and-fill operations in the 1950s and 1960s • Additional threats: In the 1990 assessment, approxi- and during the construction of the Intracoastal Wa- mately a quarter of Sarasota Bay wetlands were found terway. While many of these practices are no longer to display some form of natural damage, including permitted, their influence on hydrologic patterns in lightning strikes, freeze damage, herbivory, and erosion the bay continues. Additionally, the increase in im- (SBEP 1992). While some erosion is natural, wave ener- pervious surfaces that accompanies urban develop- gy from boating wake contributes to erosion in sever- ment results in the diversion and concentration of al areas, particularly along the Intracoastal Waterway stormwater runoff (SBEP 2010). (SBEP 1992). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 75

Figure 5.4. Historical acreages of emergent saltwater vegetation and salt flats in selected bay segments surrounding Sarasota Bay (Figure 5.2). SWFWMD did not map salt flats before 2004. Data Source: SWFWMD 2011.

Table 5.2. 2011 acreages for emergent wetlands and 6420), and salt flat (FLUCCS 6600). SWFWMD’s LULC tidal flats in Sarasota Bay and selected bay segments. mapping standards require that wetland features be at Data source: SWFWMD 2011. least 0.5 acre (0.2 ha) in area to be classified in a map. Mangroves Salt flats Salt marsh Total Blackburn Bay 54 0 2 56 Tidal Stream Assessment Project Little Sarasota 124 7 12 143 The Tidal Stream Assessment Project is part of a mul- Bay ticounty effort from Pinellas to Lee County designed to Palma Sola Bay 550 11 8 568 collect data on vegetation, bathymetry, and habitat in 16 Roberts Bay 149 0 1 149 tidal creeks on the central west coast of Florida. In the Sarasota Bay 966 20 29 1,016 summer of 2013, the University of South Florida’s Flor- TOTAL 1,843 38 52 1,933 ida Center for Community Design and Research under- took the assessment in collaboration with Mote Marine Laboratory, Janicki Environmental Inc., and the Estuary Programs of Tampa Bay, Sarasota, and Charlotte Harbor. Mapping and monitoring efforts The data from this project is available at www.sarasota. wateratlas.usf.edu/tidal-stream-assessments and is sum- Water management district mapping marized in Eilers 2013, Eilers 2014, and SBEP 2016. To assist in resource management decision-making, Shoreline vegetation mapping the SWFWMD conducts regional land use and land cover (LULC) mapping at regular intervals within its jurisdic- In 2014, SBEP initiated a shoreline vegetative assessment tion (SWFWMD 2011; Figure 5.3, Table 5.1). Features of all of its tidal tributaries (Eilers 2014). Sixteen creeks in 1-ft color infrared imagery are photointerpreted at a were surveyed for all vegetation types, including mangroves scale of 1:8,000. After the review of new imagery, updates and marshes, from the mouth of the creek to the nontidal and changes to map line work are digitized at a scale of freshwater reaches. This information increased the reso- 1:6,000. The features delineated in LULC maps are cate- lution of shoreline vegetation maps in the watershed. All gorized according to FLUCCS categories (FDOT 1999). tidal creek assessments (both SW Florida and Sarasota The coastal wetland features of interest here are man- Bay) can be accessed at www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/ grove swamp (FLUCCS 6120), saltwater marsh (FLUCCS tidal-stream-assessments/. 76 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Recommendations for protection, Works cited management, and monitoring Eilers DT. 2013. West-central Florida tidal stream assessmena summary. Final Report to the Sarasota • The Sarasota Bay Estuary Program has developed wet- Bay Estuary Program by the University of South land policies that recommend restoration and enhance- Florida, Tampa. www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/ ment, rather than just protection, for critical estuarine upload/documents/Tidal-Stream-Study-All-web.pdf, wetlands. A key goal outlined in the Comprehensive accessed May 2015. Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Sara- Eilers DT. 2014. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program tidal sota Bay (SBEP 1995, updated SBEP 2014) is to restore stream assessment study. Final report to the Sarasota and protect coastal wetlands. The Five Year Habitat Bay Estuary Program by the University of South Restoration Plan (Scheda 2010) serves as the strategic Florida, Tampa. www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/ document to support the SBEP’s wetland policies and upload/documents/SBEP-Tidal-Stream-Assessment- identify target restoration areas. The Restoration Plan Study-2014.pdf, accessed May 2015. includes a schedule of actions and priorities with the Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida land goal of restoring at least 18 acres (7.3 ha) of intertidal use, cover and forms classification system, 3rd edition. wetlands and 11 acres (4.5 ha) of freshwater wetlands State Topographic Bureau, Thematic Mapping annually. CCMP recommendations for the protec- Section. www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/ tion and restoration of coastal wetlands include the documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed following: May 2015. • Conservation and improvement projects need to Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. 1992. Framework for be identified, coordinated, and monitored. Many action: Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. restoration activities can be integrated with road Sarasota, Florida. sarasotabay.org/documents/SB or recreational improvements by state and local NEP_Framework_for_Action.pdf, accessed May governments. 2015. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. 1995. Sarasota Bay • The importance of upland areas adjacent to wet- comprehensive conservation and management plan. lands should be recognized and incorporated into Sarasota, Florida. land purchases, conservation efforts, and restoration Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. 2007. Chapter 5: Gulf of projects. Mexico National Estuary Program coastal condition, • Citizen involvement through community education, Sarasota Bay. Pp. 244–253 in National Estuary clean-up efforts, and outreach to homeowners will Program coastal condition report. U.S. Environmental facilitate endeavors to protect coastal wetlands in Protection Agency. www.hillsborough.wateratlas.usf. highly populated areas. Homeowners with water- edu/upload/documents/Gulf-Coast-NEP-Coastal- front properties should be encouraged to maintain Condition-Report-Chap5.pdf, accessed May 2015. natural shorelines, landscape with native plants, and Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. 2010. State of the practice responsible mangrove trimming. bay 2010: celebrating paradise, staying the course. • Consistent policies regarding alteration of shorelines Sarasota, Florida. sarasotabay.org/documents/State-of- are needed. Fines for violation of environmental pol- the-Bay_2010.pdf, accessed May 2015. icies can discourage harmful activities and also fund Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. 2014. Sarasota Bay environmental projects within the watershed. comprehensive conservation and management plan update & state of the bay report. Sarasota, • Replace seawalls and other hardened shorelines with liv- Florida. sarasotabay.org/wp-content/uploads/CCMP. ing shorelines. Living shorelines reduce pollution from StateoftheBay-for-website-August2014.pdf, accessed runoff, and the gradual topography facilitates inland May 2015. migration of mangroves in response to sea-level rise. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. 2016. Southwest Florida • Other recommendations include the removal of old tidal creeks nutrient study. Prepared by Janicki spoil piles, mosquito ditches, and other barriers to tid- Environmental Inc. and Mote Marine Laboratory. al flow. Help existing wetlands by reducing boat wakes www.tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_PUBS/2016/ that cause erosion and removing invasive vegetation TBEP_02_16_SW_FL_Tidal_Creeks_Final_Draft_ (SBEP 1992). Report_160121.pdf, accessed March 2016. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 77

Scheda Ecological Associates Inc. 2010. Five year habitat restoration plan (FY2010– FY2014). Prepared for the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, Sarasota, Florida. sarasotabay.org/documents/ FiveYearHabitatPlan_2010-Final.pdf, accessed May 2015. Scheda Ecological Associates Inc. 2016. Five year habitat restoration plan (FY2016–FY2020). Prepared for the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, Sarasota, Florida. sarasotabay.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-5-Year- Habitat-Restoration-Plan.pdf, accessed January 2017. Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2011. GIS, maps & survey: shapefile library. www.swfwmd. state.fl.us/data/gis/layer_library/, accessed May 2015.

General references and additional regional information Sarasota Bay Estuary Program: sarasotabay.org/ Tidal Stream Assessment Project: www.sarasota. wateratlas.usf.edu/tidal-stream-assessments

Regional contacts Jay Leverone, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, [email protected] Kris Kaufman, NOAA Restoration Center, [email protected] 78 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 6 Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay

James W. Beever III, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Lisa Beever, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (retired) Kara R. Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the region mats, salt barrens, shrub mangroves, and Conocarpus erectus (buttonwood) trees (Beever et al. 2012). Charlotte Harbor is a large, complex estuary bordered Many of the region’s original coastal wetlands were by barrier islands that receives freshwater input from the removed from the 1950s through the 1970s, a time in Myakka, Peace, and Caloosahatchee rivers along with which the area was undergoing drastic population growth many other minor tributaries (Figure 6.1). Farther south, and was developed for agriculture, suburbs, and boat nav- Estero Bay is also lined by barrier islands and receives igation. Large areas of salt marsh habitat were destroyed freshwater flow from many small rivers and creeks. The when 400 mi (640 km) of canals were constructed to pro- substrate of the region is composed of deltaic accumula- vide entire subdivisions with waterfront property (SFW- tions deposited on the limestone bedrock 5,000 years ago MD 2008). Twenty-five percent of the original mangrove when the rising sea flooded the Peace and Myakka rivers swamps were lost to dredge-and-fill developments, and (FDEP 2007). The sediments in the region are predom- 41% of the natural shoreline has been significantly al- inantly poorly drained sandy and mucky soils. Coastal tered or lost (Beever et al. 2009, CHNEP 2013a). Changes topography is low and gradually sloped, although nu- to topography and hydrology included construction of merous 15- to 20-foot (4.5–6 m) tall mounds and middens navigation channels, mosquito ditches, spoil piles, sea- built by Native Americans contribute to local variability walls, dams, and residential canals (FDEP 2007). in elevation. The population of the region has grown enormously Mangrove forests dominate the remaining natural in the past 50 years and continues to grow. From 2000 to shorelines of Charlotte Harbor. These mangrove forests 2007, the population of counties adjacent to Charlotte generally follow the classic species zonation, with Rhi- Harbor increased an average of 17% per county (Beever et zophora mangle (red mangrove) present along the shore- al. 2009). According to projections from the U.S. Census, line, followed by Avicennia germinans (black mangrove) the estimated 2015 population was 701,982 for Lee Coun- and Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove) farther ty and 173,115 for Charlotte County (U.S. Census 2015). inland. Salt marshes are not easily seen from the water Human population is concentrated along the coastline, as they are found on the landward side of the mangrove with the majority of residents living within 10 mi (16 km) forests or on the interior of islands. Salt marshes in this of the Gulf of Mexico or an estuary’s coastline (Beever et region can be subdivided into 12 types based upon the al. 2009). The estuarine and coastal waters are valuable predominant vegetation. Juncus roemerianus (black to the local economy for tourism, sport and commercial needlerush) and mixed-vegetation high marsh are the fishing, and many forms of aquatic recreation (CHNEP most common types (Beever et al. 2012). Additional com- 2008, CHNEP 2013a). mon salt marsh vegetation includes Spartina alterniflora Management of the seasonally-alternating excess and (smooth cordgrass), Acrostichum spp. (leather ferns), shortage of freshwater has been an ongoing struggle for Schoenoplectus robustus (saltmarsh bulrush), Distichlis human development of South Florida at the expense of spicata (salt grass), and Salicornia spp. (glassworts). Salt natural ecosystems. Flood-prevention structures alter nat- marshes are diverse and may include intermittent algal ural hydrologic systems, concentrating freshwater run- Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 79

Figure 6.1. Mangrove and salt marsh coverage in the Charlotte Harbor region. Data source: SWFWMD 2011 and SFWMD 2009 land use/land cover data, based on FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009a, SWFWMD 2011). 80 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors off in outflows and often deflecting flow away from salt m) of elevation; these low elevations are vulnerable to marshes. This management has led to ecosystem shifts to- seawater inundation at even modest estimates of future ward plant species that are more tolerant of high salinities sea-level rise in the region (Beever et al. 2009). Man- (Beever et al. 2011). In the dry season, commercial, agri- grove habitat is projected to continue to expand inland cultural, and residential demand for water restricts fresh- in response to climate change, often at the expense of water input into natural ecosystems (Beever et al. 2012). salt marsh habitats (NWF 2006). But if urban develop- Freshwater flow has decreased in the Peace River due ment is present landward of existing coastal wetland to upstream urban, agricultural, and mining demands habitat, these coastal wetlands will be squeezed out by and depletion of the Floridan Aquifer (CHNEP 2013a). rising sea level (CHNEP 2009). Increases in hurricane The upstream regions of the Caloosahatchee River have severity, erosion, temperature extremes, anthropogenic been channelized, and freshwater releases from Lake disturbances, and invasive species will also likely lead to Okeechobee are regulated via the Franklin lock and dam. further ecological destabilization and shifts in species High-nutrient freshwater releases during the summer abundances (Beever et al. 2012, FDEP 2014a). rainy season and limited freshwater flow during the dry • Invasive vegetation: As of 2007, Charlotte Harbor season have led to widely variable estuarine conditions in Preserve State Park documented 38 invasive plants and the Caloosahatchee (CHNEP 2008, Beever et al. 2009). 22 invasive animals (FDEP 2007). Schinus terebinthi- The majority of the remaining natural shoreline is folius (Brazilian pepper), Melaleuca quinquenervia protected by state parks and other preserves. Charlotte (melaleuca), and Casuarina spp. (Australian pines) are Harbor includes five aquatic preserves: Pine Island Sound, very common in the region and encroach on the edges Matlacha Pass, Cape Haze, Lemon Bay, and Gasparilla of mangrove and salt marsh habitat (CHNEP 2011). Sound Charlotte Harbor. State parks in the region include Charlotte Harbor Preserve, Cayo Costa, Myakka, Stump • Storm events: Large numbers of mangroves were killed Pass Beach, Gasparilla Beach, and Don Pedro Island. in 2004 when Hurricane Charlie made landfall in the While some barrier islands along Estero Bay are highly de- Charlotte Harbor region as a Category 4 storm. The veloped, the mainland shoreline of the bay remains natu- trees were killed and stripped of their leaves by the ini- ral, and much of it is preserved within Estero Bay Preserve tial force of the storm, but they also suffered afterward State Park. Other state parks around Estero Bay include from increased desiccation, disease, and insect herbivory Lovers Key and Mound Key Archaeological State Park. (FDEP 2007). Coastal wetlands in the region can recover relatively quickly from natural disturbances such as hurricanes, fires, and drought, but they are more vulnerable Threats to coastal wetlands to invasive vegetation afterward (Beever et al. 2009). • Altered hydrology and development: The two great- • Mangrove trimming: While much of Charlotte Har- est anthropogenic threats facing coastal wetlands in the bor’s coastlines are within preserves and state parks, Charlotte Harbor area are continued urban development urbanized development is present along a significant and alteration of the natural hydrology (Beever et al. part of the estuarine shoreline, and mangroves are of- 2011). Unnatural hydrologic patterns due to flood-con- ten trimmed along these waterfront properties (CH- trol structures and increasing demand for freshwater of- NEP 2011). Proper mangrove trimming, according to ten starve or inundate coastal wetlands with freshwater. regulations established by the Florida Department of Continued population growth not only results in direct Environmental Protection (FDEP), has minimal im- habitat loss in coastal regions and adjacent buffer zones, pact on mangrove productivity, but improper hedging but also has indirect effects through pollution and con- can result in the loss of more than 80% of productivity tinually growing demands for freshwater. and kill the trees. Only 20% of mangroves are trimmed according to permitting regulations, and enforcement • Climate change and sea-level rise: Climate change is is difficult because FDEP field personnel are stretched likely to increase seasonality and weather extremes in extremely thin (Beever et al. 2011). southwest Florida, causing more extreme temperatures and increasing precipitation during the wet season and • Erosion: Coastal erosion has increased in recent de- less during the dry season (Peterson et al. 2008, Beever cades, partly due to coastal development and boating et al. 2012). Sea-level rise will result in increased inun- inlets interrupting natural sediment flow (Beever et al. dation and coastal erosion. In 2009, Lee County had 2012). Several regions of critical erosion already occur 22,241 acres (9,000 ha) of mangroves and 1,517 acres on the outer edges of barrier islands in the region (Beev- (613 ha) of salt marsh located at or below 1.5 ft (0.46 er et al. 2009, FDEP 2014b). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 81

Table 6.1. Historical acreages of mangrove swamps (FLUCCS 6120) and salt marshes (FLUCCS 6420) in Charlotte Harbor (Figure 6.1), by water management district. Data sources: SFWMD 2009a, SWFWMD 2011. SWFWMD SWFWMD Year Mangrove Salt marsh 1990 18,810 8,171 1994 18,428 8,507 1999 18,403 8,533 2004 18,740 8,665 2005 18,737 8,679 Figure 6.2. Acreages of mangrove swamps and salt 2006 18,720 9,544 marshes in the SWFWMD’s portion of Charlotte Harbor 2007 18,719 9,543 (Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1). Data source: SWFWMD 2011. 2008 20,507 7,426 2009 20,490 7,732 2010 20,457 7, 546 2011 20,461 7, 571 SFWMD SFWMD Year Mangrove Salt marsh 1995 42,462 3,891 1999 41,093 3,732 2004–2005 41,057 4,160 2008–2009 41,482 4,612

Mapping and monitoring efforts Figure 6.3. Acreages of mangrove swamps and salt marshes in the SFWMD’s portion of the Charlotte Harbor region (Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1). Data source: Water management district mapping SFWMD 2009a. The Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay region is divided between the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) (Figure 6.1). SWFWMD conducted uplands and 2 acres (0.8 ha) for wetlands. The 2008–2009 land use and land cover (LULC) surveys from 1990 through maps were made by interpreting aerial photography and 2011 (Table 6.1, Figure 6.2). Features in 1-ft color infrared updating 2004–2005 vector data (SFWMD 2009). imagery were photointerpreted at a scale of 1:8,000. After Some of the year-to-year variability seen in water the review of new imagery, updates and changes to map management district salt marsh and mangrove acreage line work are digitized at a scale of 1:6,000. The features de- (Figures 6.2 and 6.3) is likely due to refinement of map- lineated in LULC maps are categorized according to Flor- ping methods and spatial resolution rather than actual ida Land Use and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) annual variation (Beever et al. 2012, CHNEP 2014). Small categories (FDOT 1999). SWFWMD’s LULC mapping annual changes in salt marsh and mangrove extent con- standards require that wetland features be at least 0.5 acre tinue to occur as a result of restoration projects, man- (0.2 ha) in area to be classified in maps. grove encroachment into salt marshes, and small amounts SFWMD also conducts fairly regular LULC surveys of permitted development (CHNEP 2009, CHNEP 2011, within its boundaries (Table 6.1, Figure 6.3). The 2008–2009 CHNEP 2014). A salt marsh mapping study conducted land cover classifications were based on an SFWMD modi- during 2010–2012 (see below) offers a high-resolution fied FLUCCS classification system (FDOT 1999, SFWMD map of salt marsh that identifies these small changes 2009b). Minimum mapping units were 5 acres (2 ha) for (Beever et al. 2012). 82 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and Southwest Florida Regional 35.71 Total 162.18 389.32 1,291.73 1,346.16 2,773.91 2,329.37 2,301.66 4,222.68 Planning Council mapping 14,463.42 Beever et al. (2012) mapped 14,853 acres (6,010 ha) of salt marsh of all types in 2010–2012 within the Char- 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.71 19.62 lotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP) study Shrub area. Local acreages of salt marshes among the regional buttonwood watersheds are shown in Table 6.2. Total salt marsh ex- 5.25 0.00 40.16 51.27 65.57 42.35 tent was greater in the 2010–2012 CHNEP study than in 44.40 149.23 560.92 202.84 earlier mapping by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conser- Grasses vation Commission, SFWMD, and SWFWMD (Beever et al. 2012). These differences are not thought to be the 0.00 25.10 66.33 129.43 180.98 779.50 512.85 Mixed 5,717.47 1,466.90 result of an actual increase in salt marsh extent, but rather 2,622.71 the product of refined mapping methods in the CHNEP study. Significant areas of salt marsh were incorrectly 4.32 0.00 6.67 21.59 32.97 167.15 307.19 939.42 280.51 mapped as mangrove forest in earlier mapping efforts and 123.34 other areas of mangrove were designated as salt marsh. In Succulents some watersheds, some freshwater marsh and bare sand 8.18 1.42 upland areas were previously mapped as salt marsh (Beev- 0.04 11.16 11.01 51.58 46.85 327.4 4 198.45 644.97 er et al. 2012). An example of these adjustments (labelled Saltern as working base modifications) is shown in Figure 6.4, 7.90 6.58 while Figure 6.5 shows the total extent of salt marshes 0.00 16.75 Algal 78.38 12.28 532.74 340.70 248.40 and mangroves in the Charlotte Harbor region as deter- 1, 237.14 mined by CHNEP and Southwest Florida Regional Plan- ning Council (SWFRPC) mapping. 4.95 1.37 0.00 45.72 51.35 90.97 Scrub 449.45 315.34 Predevelopment maps were created by SFWMD, CH- 246.95 1,160.39 NEP, and consultants using historical aerial photographs mangrove (Beever et al. 2012). Calculations based on these maps reveal that more than half of the salt marsh in the Charlotte 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 337.37 337.37

Harbor area has been lost to development (salt marsh loss bulrush in each watershed is shown in Table 6.3). However, 74% Saltmarsh of the remaining salt marsh extent is located on conserved land (Table 6.3). 7.23 5.30 8.28 0.28 37.82 76.54 38.58 52.40 388.15 In 2014, CHNEP initiated a new two-year mapping 238.27 effort for mangroves in the Charlotte Harbor region. Leather fern Mangroves were mapped by geomorphic type and species (example shown in Figure 6.6). Geomorphic types include 8.33 10.62 14.04 30.37 Black 138.51 190.48 overwash island, fringe, riverine, basin, hammock, scrub, 726.26 3,455.16 1,446.11 1,028.95 and altered mangrove hedge. In addition, areas with die- needlerush offs, stress, and potential future loss were identified. Areas 2.81 2.72 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

with blocked tidal flow can lead to stagnant water, which grass Cord is a stressful condition for mangroves that may lead to die- offs, a phenomenon also referred to as a mangrove heart attack (Lewis et al. 2015). Further CHNEP efforts have focused on the identifying characteristics of stressed mangroves, including spectral signatures, which enable early identification and strategy development to prevent mangrove die-offs (Beever et al. 2016). Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee Dona and Roberts Bay Estero Bay Lemon Bay River Myakka Peace River Peace Matlacha Pass Matlacha Watershed Pine Island Sound Total Table 6.2. Salt marsh in acreage Charlotte CHNEP Harbor as mapped by watersheds, Table in 2010–2012. source: Data Beever et al. 2012. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 83

Figure 6.4. Example of mapping adjustments (working base modifications) made by CHNEP and SWFRPC to water management district and regional planning council base maps (WMD-RPC Base) near the Imperial River, south of Estero Bay.

Local assessments and reports Estuary report cards Many recent assessments of the Charlotte Harbor The Conservancy for Southwest Florida used water estuary and watershed are available from the Conser- quality and mapping data to create the 2005 and 2011 estu- vancy of Southwest Florida (CSF 2005, CSF 2011), CH- ary report cards (CSF 2005, CSF 2011). The regional grades NEP, and SWFRPC (Beever et al. 2009, 2011, and 2012, in these report cards were based on factors such as water CHNEP 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013a, 2013b, and 2014). nutrient concentrations, dissolved oxygen concentrations, These documents include vulnerability assessments, presence of pathogens and heavy metals, hydrology, extent estuary report cards, monitoring reports, and conser- of all wetlands and mangroves compared with historical vation and management plans for the region. The tidal data, and area of conservation lands. Common problems stream assessment project mentioned in Chapters 4 and identified included low concentrations of dissolved oxygen 5 also includes Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay (SBEP and high concentrations of nutrients, pathogens, or mer- 2016). The multicounty collaborative effort includes cury. Some regions also received low scores due to altered monitoring data on vegetation, bathymetry, and habitat hydrology, few remaining mangroves, and small amounts in tidal creeks on the central west coast of Florida. The of conserved land. A summary of the scores given to the data from this project are publically available at www. relevant regions is provided in Table 6.4; full evaluations sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/tidal-stream-assessments and detailed maps of modern and historical mangrove ex- and are summarized in SBEP 2016. tent may be found in the technical report (CSF 2011). 84 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Volunteer shoreline surveys CHNEP used volunteers to conduct shoreline surveys in 2007, 2010, and 2013. The surveys identified the percentage of mangroves present on the shoreline, mangrove height and trimming style (if trimmed), the presence of nonnative vegetation, shoreline hardening, and type of construction. While the entire Charlotte Harbor estuary coastline was not surveyed, the same regions were covered in 2010 and 2013 (CHNEP 2013b). These surveys found an increased presence of mangroves and Brazilian pepper in several of the surveyed regions.

Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model The Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) Version 4.1 (NWF 2006) predicts coastal vegetation changes using the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change A1B climate scenario, which foresees a mean sea-level rise of 15.2 in. (38.6 cm) by 2100 (IPCC 2001). SLAMM predicts that 89% of salt marshes in the Charlotte Harbor area will disappear by 2100, but mangrove extent will increase by 75% (NWF 2006). Mangroves are expected to overtake large amounts of salt marsh habitat, but their success also depends Figure 6.5. Mangrove swamp and salt marsh in Charlotte Harbor/ upon their ability to accumulate sediment at Estero Bay, determined by the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary a pace that keeps up with sea-level rise. Program and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.

Table 6.3. A comparison of predevelopment and modern salt marsh extent in Charlotte Harbor watersheds, as mapped by CHNEP in 2010–2012. Conserved land was identified using SWFWMD and SFWMD 2009 LULC maps and 2011 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council maps. Data sources: Beever et al. 2011, Beever et al. 2012, SFWMD 2009a, and SWFWMD 2011. Current salt % of current Predevelopment 2010–2012 Acreage Watershed % change marsh acreage on salt marshes on acreage acreage change conserved land conserved land Caloosahatchee 2,659 389 −2,269 −85% 305 78% Charlotte Harbor 11,548 4,223 −7, 325 −63% 3,808 90% Dona and Roberts Bay 6 36 30 488% 1 3% Estero Bay 2,055 2,774 719 35% 2,508 90% Lemon Bay 1,023 162 −861 −84% 111 69% Myakka River 935 1,292 357 38% 511 40% Peace River 5,540 2,302 −3,239 −58% 710 31% Pine Island Sound and 10,577 3,679 −6,898 −65% 3,109 85% Matlacha Pass Total 34,343 14,857 −19,486 −57% 11,063 74% Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 85

Figure 6.6. Example of detailed CHNEP mapping along Tippecanoe Bay in northern Charlotte Harbor. Pink = salt marsh, blue = mixed mangrove fringe, olive green = basin black mangrove, red = red mangrove fringe, white = white mangrove fringe, beige = tropical hardwood hammock (coastal berm), black dots = spoil along mosquito ditches.

Recommendations for protection, and identify early signs of ecosystem-wide shifts is management, and monitoring needed to best implement management and mitigation strategies (Beever et al. 2009). Invasive species and lo- • Elevation-appropriate buffer zones that are protected cally altered hydrology can also drive ecosystem shifts, from human development are needed on the landward but pre-emptive rehabilitation of stressed and degraded edge of coastal wetlands. These will allow coastal wet- coastal wetland habitats could aid particularly vulnera- lands to move inland as habitat is lost due to sea-level ble regions (Lewis et al. 2015, Beever et al. 2016). Recom- rise and erosion (CHNEP 2013a). mendations regarding wetland mitigation practices in • Hydrologic flow following natural seasonal patterns southwest Florida may be found in Beever et al. (2011). needs to be re-established in the estuary. This includes • Management concerns in the Charlotte Harbor Pre- minimizing large pulses of freshwater, establishing a serve State Park management plan (FDEP 2007) include reliable aquifer flow, restoring water conveyances, and the need for mapping and inventory of plant and ani- planning for future water demands in the area (CH- mal communities, increased effort to control the extent NEP 2013a). of invasive species, and hydrologic modeling. The plan also reinforced the need for consistent monitoring of • Additional public education and enforcement regard- natural resources and restoration projects. FDEP seeks ing appropriate mangrove trimming are needed. More to find a balance between land preservation efforts and FDEP personnel are needed to enforce mangrove trim- making specific regions accessible for recreation. Con- ming regulations, or mangrove trimming should be tinued population growth in the region necessitates banned (Beever et al. 2011). conservation of freshwater resources and increases the • Monitoring to document the effects of climate change importance of conserved land. 86 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Table 6.4. Wildlife habitat grades of regions in and around the Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Data source: CSF 2011. Wetlands Mangroves Conservation Overall Averaged Estuary percent percent lands wildlife-habitat percentage remaining remaining percentage grade Coastal Venice 48% 47% 48% 12% C− Lemon Bay 70% 55% 63% 25% B Greater Charlotte Harbor 64% 57% 61% 18% B− Pine Island Sound 70% 100% 85% 56% A+ Caloosahatchee 39% 38% 39% 16% D− Estero Bay 62% 85% 74% 21% B−

Works cited plan for the greater Charlotte Harbor watershed from Venice to Bonita Springs to Winter Haven. Fort Beever J III, Gray W, Beever LB, Cobb D. 2011. A Myers, Florida. watershed analysis of permitted coastal wetland Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. impacts and mitigation methods within the Charlotte 2009. Charlotte Harbor regional climate change Harbor National Estuary Program study area. vulnerability assessment. Fort Myers, Florida. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/Charlotte%20 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Fort Harbor%20Regional%20Vulnerability%20Assess Myers. www.swfrpc.org/content/natural_resources/ ment.pdf, accessed August 2015. ecosystem_services/201104025_a_watershed_ Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2011. analysis_of_permitted_coastal_wetland_impacts.pdf, Charlotte Harbor seven-county watershed report. accessed August 2015. Fort Myers, Florida. www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf. Beever J III, Gray W, Beever LB, Cobb D, Walker T. edu/upload/documents/2011WatershedReport.pdf, 2012. Climate change vulnerability assessment accessed August 2015. and adaptation opportunities for salt marsh types Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2013a. A in southwest Florida. Southwest Florida Regional comprehensive conservation and management plan Planning Council and Charlotte Harbor National for the greater Charlotte Harbor watershed. Fort Estuary Program, Fort Myers. www.swfrpc.org/ Myers, Florida. www.charlottecountyfl.gov/boards- content/Natural_Resources/Climate_Change/ committees/raab/Site%20Documents/Charlotte- Salt%20Marsh%20Study%20Draft%20Reduced. Harbor-National-Estuary-Conservation-Plan.pdf, pdf, accessed August 2015. accessed August 2015. Beever JW III, Gray W, Trescott D, Cobb D, Utley J, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2013b. Beever LB. 2009. Comprehensive southwest Florida/ Volunteer tidal shoreline survey. Fort Myers, Florida. Charlotte Harbor climate change vulnerability www.chnep.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/ assessment. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary CHNEP-2013-Volunteer-Shore Program and Southwest Florida Regional Planning line-Survey-FINAL.pdf, accessed August 2015. Council, Fort Myers www.swfrpc.org/content/ Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2014. Natural_Resources/Ecosystem_Services/Vulnerability_ Alligator Creek addition restoration structural Assessment_Final.pdf, accessed August 2015. monitoring report. Fort Myers, Florida. Beever LB, Beever JW III, Lewis RR III, Flynn L, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. 2005. Estuaries Tattar T, Donley L, Neafsey EJ. 2016. Identifying report card for southwest Florida. Naples. www. and diagnosing locations of ongoing and future conservancy.org/document.doc?id=32, accessed saltwater wetland loss: mangrove heart attack. August 2015. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, Punta Conservancy of Southwest Florida. 2011. The Gorda, Florida. www.chnep.wateratlas.usf.edu/ Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 estuaries upload/documents/Mangrove-Heart-Attack-Draft- report card. Naples. www.conservancy.org/document. 30Sept2016.pdf, accessed March 2017. doc?id=379, accessed August 2015. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2008. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. A Comprehensive conservation and management 2007. Charlotte Harbor preserve state park Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 87

unit management plan. Tallahassee. www. PUBS/2016/TBEP_02_16_SW_FL_Tidal_Creeks_ dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ Final_Draft_Report_160121.pdf, accessed March CharlotteHarborPreserveStatePark.pdf, accessed 2016. August 2015. South Florida Water Management District. 2008. Lower Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Charlotte Harbor surface water improvement and 2014a. Estero Bay aquatic preserve management plan. management plan. my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/ Tallahassee. publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/cama/plans/ xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/lower_charlotte_ aquatic/Estero_Bay_Aquatic_Preserve_Management_ harbor_swim.pdf, accessed August 2015. Plan_2014.pdf, accessed August 2015. South Florida Water Management District. 2009a. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. SFWMD GIS data catalogue. my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/ 2014b. Critically eroded beaches in Florida. sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?, accessed August 2015. Tallahassee, Florida. www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/ South Florida Water Management District. 2009b. 2009 publications/pdf/CriticalErosionReport.pdf, accessed SFWMD photointerpretation key. my.sfwmd.gov/ August 2015. portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_ Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida pdf/2009_pi-key.pdf, accessed August 2015. land use, cover and forms classification system, Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2011. GIS, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, Thematic maps & Survey: Shapefile Library. www.swfwmd.state. Mapping Section. www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyinga fl.us/data/gis/layer_library/, accessed August 2015. ndmapping/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999 U.S. Census. 2015. United States census bureau state .pdf, accessed August 2015. & county quick facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. accessed March 2017. Climate change 2001: Synthesis report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. www. General references and ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/, accessed August 2015. additional regional information Lewis RR III, Milbrandt EC, Brown B, Krauss KW, Charlotte Harbor Water Atlas: Rovai AS, Beever JW III, Flynn LL. 2016. Stress in www.chnep.wateratlas.usf.edu/ mangrove forests: Early detection and preemptive rehabilitation are essential for future successful Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program: worldwide mangrove forest management. Marine www.chnep.org/ Pollution Bulletin 109:764–771. Conservancy of Southwest Florida: www.conservancy.org/ National Wildlife Federation. 2006. An unfavorable tide—global warming, coastal habitats and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council: sportfishing in Florida. Prepared by Glick P, Clough www.swfrpc.org/ J. NWF and Warren Pinnacle Consulting Inc. www. South Florida Water Management District: nwf.org/pdf/Global-Warming/An_Unfavorable_ www.sfwmd.gov/ Tide_Report.pdf, accessed August 2015. Peterson CH, Barber RT, Cottingham KL, Lotze HK, Southwest Florida Water Management District: Simenstad CA, Christian RR, Piehler MF, Wilson J. www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/ 2008. Chapter 7: National estuaries. Pp. 7-1 to 7-108 in Julius SH, West JM (eds.). Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems Regional contacts and resources. U.S. Climate Change Science Program Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Conservation Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, [email protected] DC. cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay James W. Beever III, Southwest Florida Regional .cfm?deid=180143, accessed August 2015. Planning Council, [email protected] Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. 2016. Southwest Florida tidal creeks nutrient study. Prepared by Janicki Environmental Inc. and Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. www.tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_ 88 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 7 Collier County

Jill Schmid, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Roy R. (Robin) Lewis III, Coastal Resources Group Inc E.J. Neafsey, Florida Gulf Coast University Everglades Wetlands Research Park Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Craig van der Heiden, The Institute for Regional Conservation Kara R. Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the region The extensive network of small islands along the coastline results in a high edge-to-area ratio in these island Collier County includes the large coastal develop- mangrove habitats. Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove) is ments of Naples and Marco Island but also contains a commonly found along the fringe of coastal islands and network of protected lands with large uninterrupted areas tidal creeks. Avicennia germinans (black mangrove) and of coastal habitat (Figure 7.1). These coastal public lands Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove) tend to prefer include Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, Rookery Bay Na- higher elevation or disturbed areas usually found on the tional Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR), Cape Roma- interior and landward side, although mixed-species man- no–Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve, Ten Thou- grove forests are also found in the area (USFWS 2000). sand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Collier-Seminole Conocarpus erectus (buttonwood) is common in areas of State Park, and Everglades National Park. Coastal estua- slightly higher elevation, such as on ridges along levees rine waters are generally shallow; Ten Thousand Islands or on beach strands. Powerful hurricanes in 1918 and National Wildlife Refuge has a mean depth of 10 ft (3 m) Hurricane Donna in 1960 caused massive deforestation (USFWS 2000). Salinity varies widely with freshwater in- in the region; consequently, most of the mangroves are flow, generally staying above 34 in the dry season and fluc- second-growth forests (USFWS 2000, FDEP 2012). Hur- tuating between 20 and 32 in the wet season (Soderqvist ricane Andrew in 1992 and Hurricane Wilma in 2005 also and Patino 2010). The substrate is Miami limestone from caused extensive damage to the mangroves (Smith et al. the Miocene, which is overlaid by a poorly drained as- 1994, FDEP 2012). Andrew caused slightly more tree loss sortment of late Pleistocene sands, organic material, and in island mangroves, while Wilma caused significantly mangrove peat (USFWS 2000). The coastal islands also more damage in basin forests and set back recovery of the contain quartz sand and shell hash (FDEP 2012). Coastal forests after Andrew (Smith et al. 2009). elevation is very low, although shell mounds from Native Mangroves dominate the coast, while salt marshes dom- American populations and some small sandy dunes pro- inated by Spartina spp. (cordgrasses), Juncus roemerianus vide some local variability (USFWS 2000). (black needlerush), and Distichlis spicata (salt grass) occur The undeveloped coastline and many small islands in further inland (Figure 7.1). Most of the salt marshes lack Collier County are vegetated by extensive mangrove for- a direct tidal connection in most places but flood at high ests (Figure 7.1). According to version 3.0 of Cooperative tides and during storms. Coastal ponds containing saline, Land Cover data, there are approximately 86,300 acres brackish, or freshwater are also found in close association (43,900 ha) of mangroves and 25,800 acres (10,400 ha) of with the salt marshes. Upland habitat is not common along salt marsh in the county (FWC and FNAI 2014). the coast due to the low elevation (USFWS 2000). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 89

Figure 7.1. Mangrove and salt marsh habitats in Collier County, Florida according to SFWMD 2011–2013 land use/land cover data following FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009a).

Mangroves have expanded inland as a result of al- of 357,305 in 2015, the population of Collier County is tered hydrology due to drainage canals diverting fresh- lower than that of other urban centers in South Florida. water flow, U.S. 41 impeding surface water flow to salt However it grew at an estimated rate of 11.1% from 2010 and brackish marshes, and sea-level rise. Mangrove ex- to 2015, outpacing the state growth average of 7.8% (U.S. tent in Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge Census 2015). Tourism, commercial fishing, and sport- increased 35%, or 4,640 acres (1,878 ha), from 1927 to fishing are central components of the economy. 2005 (Krauss et al. 2011). Constructed waterways, such The once extensive mangrove shoreline along Na- as the Faka Union Canal (Figure 7.1), facilitate mangrove ples and Marco Island has been irreversibly transformed expansion by increasing the upstream reaches of tidal in- by development and hydrologic alterations (Turner and fluence, enhancing the dispersal of mangrove propagules Lewis 1997). Mangrove fringe adjacent to urban areas inland (Krauss et al. 2011). was removed to pave the way for residential developments and commercial ventures. Naples Bay lost more than 70% Human development and hydrologic alterations of its fringing mangrove shoreline in the 1950s and 1960s, when extensive dredge-and-fill operations and shoreline Rapid development and a lack of environmental regu- modifications made way for residential communities lation before 1970 resulted in extensive loss and alteration including Port Royal, Royal Harbor, Aqualane Shores, of wetlands in Collier County (USFWS 2000). This loss Windstar, and Moorings Bay (FDEP 1981, Schmid et al. was followed by a period of rapid population growth; 2006). Mangroves were extensively removed on Marco Is- from 1980 to 1998, the population of the county increased land in the 1960s and 1970s to make way for the current by 144% (FDEP 2012). With an estimated population framework of dredged canal-front homes. 90 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Although human development has been extensive in and road construction along Clam Bay led to altered many parts of the county, large tracts of protected land hydrology and widespread death of A. germinans in and mangrove expansion have enabled mangroves to re- the 1990s (Worley and Schmid 2010). While much of tain 70% of their original acreage in the Rookery Bay wa- Collier County is now conservation land, population tershed and to exceed their historical acreage in the Ten growth and development continue, particularly along Thousand Islands watershed (CSF 2011). In the northern State Road 951 and south of U.S. 41. This development part of the watershed, however, extensive human devel- continues to impact coastal wetlands via habitat de- opment has caused water quality problems along the struction, impaired water quality, and altered hydrolo- coast, including low dissolved oxygen, high nutrients, and gy, such as roads blocking tidal exchange (Zysko 2011). increased levels of other pollutants (CSF 2011). A series • Storm events: Hurricanes and tropical storms shape of canals were dug by the Gulf American Corporation the structure of mangrove forests by causing wide- during 1963–1971 to drain extensive areas for the planned spread defoliation and mortality and by altering tree South Golden Gate Estates development. These canals sizes and species abundance (Smith et al. 2009). Pow- connect to the Faka Union Canal and discharge at Port erful hurricanes between 1918 and 1960 killed many of the Islands, resulting in increased freshwater flow and of the mangroves in the region (USFWS 2000, FDEP water turbidity, along with decreased fish populations 2012) and coastal wetlands were heavily damaged by and seagrass growth in Ten Thousand Islands Nation- Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (Smith et al. 1994). Peat al Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2000, Shrestha et al. 2011). collapse is also suspected of causing mortality after Much of the planned South Golden Gate Estates were storms and is thought to have been responsible for the not developed, and the State of Florida purchased most of A. germinans die-offs following the 1935 Labor Day the private lots between 1998 and 2001 to implement the hurricane and Hurricane Donna in 1960 (Wanless et hydrologic restoration plan of the region, now known as al. 1995). Picayune Strand State Forest (SFWMD and USDA 2003). The restoration plan aims to restore hydrology by block- • Climate change and sea-level rise: C. erectus and L. ing canals, pumping out water, and removing roads to racemosa have already overtaken significant expanses restore more natural sheet flow (USFWS 2000, SFWMD of salt marsh and brackish marsh as they expand in- and USDA 2003). The first of three pump stations for the land, primarily as a response to rising sea levels (Krauss restoration effort was opened in 2014 (Staats 2014). Addi- et al. 2011, Barry et al. 2013). Rising sea levels may also tional efforts to improve sheet flow in the Ten Thousand enable mangrove expansion into salt barrens. The tidal Island region include the installation of 62 culverts along flushing provided by a small increase in sea level can 48 miles (77 km) of Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) in Collier decrease hypersaline conditions of the salt barren, cre- County from 2004 to 2006 (Abtew and Ciuca 2011). ating favorable conditions for mangroves to colonize there. Despite current trends in mangrove expansion, mangroves are still at risk if the rate of sea-level rise Threats to coastal wetlands exceeds the rate of substrate accumulation or inland Coastal wetlands are threatened by anthropogenic migration. Development along some regions of coastal and natural phenomena. Finn et al. (1997) classified 15 Collier County also block mangroves and salt marsh different causes of mangrove die-offs in the area includ- from migrating inland, pinching out coastal wetland ing lightning strikes, hurricanes, frost, and human im- habitat. pacts. In southwest Florida, A. germinans die-offs often • Disease and other biotic factors: Disease is usually not occur as a result of an extended period of surface-water the root cause of mortality in coastal wetland forests; retention due to impoundment, increased surface-water rather, diseases tend to occur in areas that are stressed runoff, blocked tidal exchange, or stagnant tidal circula- by other influences (Jimenez et al. 1985). Cytospora rhi- tion leading to prolonged submersion and stress on pneu- zophorae, a fungus found in mangrove forests in Collier matophores. This can eventually kill the mangrove, and County, is a classic example. This fungus tends to at- the subsequent decay of biomass belowground can cause tack stressed R. mangle trees and has a mortality rate as peat subsidence, decreasing elevation and resulting in fur- high as 32% (Wier et al. 2000). Similarly, after the cold ther inundation (Worley 2005). snap in the winter of 2008, some parts of mangrove for- • Coastal development and altered hydrology: Urban ests became infested with wood-boring beetles. Under construction has been linked to many instances of healthy conditions these boring beetles tend to attack mangrove die-off in Collier County. For instance, urban living twigs or branches, but the tree usually recovers. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 91

But in stressed conditions severe infestations are more dramatic changes are probably caused by rising sea level likely to develop, possibly to the extent that the trees and hydrologic alterations. become girdled and die. Given that current and future Vegetation classifications in the IRC maps follow the stressors to coastal wetlands are likely to increase due categories used by CERP (Rutchey et al. 2006), Flori- to anthropogenic and natural causes, disease and in- da Natural Areas Inventory communities (FNAI 2010), festations could have a greater influence on mortality and Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System rates. (FLUCCS; FDOT 1999). Figure 7.2 illustrates the level • Invasive vegetation: Invasive vegetation, mainly Schi- of detail inherent in the classification, which is necessary nus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper) but also Casua- for detecting subtle changes in vegetation that might be rina spp. (Australian pines), Melaleuca quinquenervia associated with anthropogenic influences and effects of (melaleuca), and Colubrina asiatica (latherleaf) tend sea-level rise. These fine-scale maps are especially import- to dominate along the fringe of marsh and mangrove ant as they have established baseline data on the extent habitats (USFWS 2000). Removal efforts are ongoing as and cover of specific vegetative communities and can be funding is available, but maintaining control is a con- used in the future to document changes. stant challenge. Mapping mangrove stress in Rookery Bay and Mapping and monitoring efforts Ten Thousand Islands Neafsey (2014) mapped mangrove stress through a Institute for Regional Conservation mapping combination of imagery interpretation (Esri Basemap) and The southwest coast of Collier County has been field surveys, using the South Florida Water Management mapped according to the Comprehensive Everglades District’s (SFWMD) definition of mangrove forests. Prelim- Restoration Plan (CERP) by the Institute for Regional inary results are shown in Figure 7.3. An index was created Conservation (IRC). Due to funding constraints, efforts to map the status of mangrove forests on a scale of 1 to 5: have been limited to Rookery Bay NERR (Barry et al. 1. functional mangrove, no exotics, and no im- 2013, Barry and van der Heiden 2015), Ten Thousand poundments (66,370 acres/26,859 ha) Island National Wildlife Refuge (Barry 2009), and Pic- 2. mosquito ditching (373 acres/151 ha) ayune Strand State Forest. Results of this mapping are 3. impoundments (704 acres/285 ha) shown in Figure 7.2. Each agency with land-manage- 4. impoundments and mosquito ditching ment responsibilities has been responsible for finding (84 acres/34 ha) the funding to contract with IRC to conduct the map- 5. circular zones of high mangrove mortality ping efforts. Having IRC conduct the mapping for all the (232 acres/94 ha) agencies has provided a contiguous map with consistent Ongoing data collection includes detailed vegetation methodology. mapping and inventory in stress zones, collecting man- The vegetation maps were created based on extensive grove tissue samples for assessing the possible influence field work, multiple years of aerial photography inter- of hydrologic changes on tree physiology (i.e., Na:K and pretation, and LiDAR. The field data collection included other biochemical indicators of plant health), and moni- photo points and GPS track logs with observed vegetation, toring key soil properties (salinity, pH, and total sulfides). including the presence of rare and nonnative vegetation. These results indicated that 1,394 acres (564 ha) of the To produce a historical vegetation map, IRC integrated total 67,763 acres (27,423 ha) examined were stressed or field observations, interviews with long-time residents, dead, amounting to 2.06% of the surveyed mangroves. and 1940 aerial photography. The habitat mapping ef- Focusing on an area of high mangrove mortality, the forts in Rookery Bay NERR have documented wide- Conservancy of Southwest Florida (CSF) and Coast- spread mangrove die-off areas within the reserve (Barry al Resources Group Inc., found that more than half of et al. 2013). The die-offs, many in areas dominated by A. the 1,000 acres (404 ha) of mangroves surveyed near germinans, are most likely due to a combination of an- Goodland were stressed or dead (see Fruit Farm Creek thropogenic causes (namely altered hydrology) and natu- restoration explanation below). Further research and ral factors (hurricanes). Overall, vegetation analysis from field verification are needed to complete accurate maps 1940 through 2010 reveals that salt marshes have changed of the healthy, stressed, and dead mangroves in Rookery the most, overwhelmingly toward mangrove-dominated Bay NERR and to prepare restoration plans for future communities (Barry and van der Heiden 2015). These efforts. 92 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 7.2. Salt marsh and mangrove habitats mapped in the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Barry et al. 2013) and Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Barry 2009) according to the CERP classifications (Rutchey et al. 2006). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 93

Figure 7.3. Mangrove stress mapped in Rookery Bay and Ten Thousand Islands on a scale of 1–5 (modified from Neafsey 2014). See text for description of classification system.

Water management district mapping calculated that the total mangrove acreage in the Marco Island area declined from 11,285 acres (4,566 ha) to 8,574 SFWMD conducts fairly regular land use/land cover acres (3,470 ha) from 1952 to 1984. The decline was pri- (LULC) surveys within the district. Figure 7.1 shows the marily due to the residential development of Marco Is- 2008–2009 LULC map; classifications are based upon a land, but hurricanes during the 1960s also contributed. SFWMD modified FLUCCS classification system (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009b). Minimum mapping units were 5 Monitoring restoration projects acres (2 ha) for uplands and 2 acres (0.8 ha) for wetlands. The 2008–2009 maps were made by interpreting aerial There have been numerous mangrove and hydrologic photography and updating 2004–2005 vector data (SFW- restoration projects in Collier County during the past 20 MD 2009a). years; selected examples are listed below. Monitoring efforts are still under way in a few of these projects and have provided valuable information to guide management and Marco Island mapping restoration decisions for stressed and dead mangroves. Patterson (1986) mapped mangrove habitats in the • Fruit Farm Creek: This phased mangrove restoration Marco Island area using aerial photography from 1984, effort was initiated in 2000. Preliminary studies by CSF 1973, 1962, and 1952 and examined the change in area investigated the factors that contributed to the nearly of mangrove communities among aerial photographs. 600 acres (242 ha) of dead and stressed mangroves near He performed an accuracy assessment on the maps with Goodland. A multiagency organizational group led by ground truthing and helicopter surveys. Patterson (1986) the Coastal Resources Group was formed in 2005 and 94 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

created restoration plans for a two-phase program to- remains uncertain, given the various stressors affect- taling 225 acres (103 ha). ing this system and the need for annual maintenance Tidal exchange to a 4-acre (1.6 ha) test site in the of some of the tidal channels. Monitoring should be die-off area was restored in 2012 with funding from continued for evaluation of the long-term success of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program the restoration. and was monitored by CSF and the Coastal Resources • Windstar Country Club: In 1982, restoration com- Group. This hydrologic restoration program (Turn- menced on 15 acres (6 ha) of mangrove forest as miti- er and Lewis 1997) followed the basic principles of gation for impacted wetlands (Lewis 1990, Peters 2001). ecological mangrove restoration outlined by Lewis Postmitigation monitoring was conducted from 1989 (2005) and Lewis and Brown (2014), under which no through 2000 to compare colonization, growth, and mangroves were planted. Volunteer mangroves are succession in the restored site with that in a natural now colonizing the site. An additional 221 acres (89 mangrove forest (Proffitt and Devlin 2005). By 2000, ha) of stressed and dead mangroves are planned for species richness and vegetation cover in the created restoration as part of Phase 2, pending funding (Zys- mangrove forest were similar to those of the natural ko 2011). Monitoring reports and plan descriptions are forest, although the trees were smaller with higher stem available at www.marcomangroves.com. density and differed in species composition. • Picayune Strand restoration project: In 1996 SFWMD • Henderson Creek Mangrove Restoration: Three developed a conceptual plan for the hydrologic resto- hectares of mangrove forest, leveled and filled in 1973, ration of Picayune Strand State Forest. Additionally, the were restored in 1991. One year of post-restoration forest was identified as essential habitat and incorpo- monitoring found differing species composition of fish rated in the effort to restore the western Everglades as and macroinvertebrates in the restored site compared part of CERP in 1998. The restoration efforts included to those at an adjacent natural mangrove forest (Shir- the installation of pump stations, spreader channels, 83 ley 1992). In a longer-term monitoring study of Hen- mi (133 km) of canal plugs, and 227 mi (365 km) of derson Creek and the Windstar Country Club sites, road removal (www.evergladesrestoration.gov/). The McKee and Faulkner (2000) found that the ecosystem Picayune Strand restoration project will improve sheet and biogeochemical functions of the restored sites var- flow, wetland habitats, and the ecological connectivity ied widely depending on hydrology, salinity, and soil between adjacent state and federal conservation lands. characteristics. The project should be completed by 2020. A number of monitoring projects have been associated with the restoration, including vegetative, hydrologic, and wildlife Recommendations for protection, assessments conducted by a variety of agencies (SFW- management, and monitoring MD, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wild- • Prevent rapid stormwater runoff in the watershed. Ex- life Service, Rookery Bay NERR, CSF, Florida Gulf tensive drainage canals and urban stormwater systems Coast University, and Audubon). See Chuirazzi and rapidly transport and concentrate stormwater rather Duever (2008) for a summary and baseline data from than release it as a steady, continuous flow. While hy- the restoration project. drology cannot be fully restored due to human devel- • Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area: In opment, unnecessary drainage canals can be filled to 1999, Collier County initiated a 10-year, multiagency diffuse surface water, rehydrate dried wetlands, and restoration project in Clam Bay estuary. Tidal flow was reduce salinity in coastal wetlands (CSF 2011). Addi- improved by dredging the main tidal creeks, clearing tionally, sustainable agricultural practices, enhanced small tributaries, and installing hand-dug channels to wastewater treatment, and stormwater management drain excess surface water. Restoration and monitoring are needed to reduce nutrient input and subsequent eu- of permanent plots and transects was initiated by Lewis trophication of coastal estuaries. Environmental Services Inc. and is continued by CSF • Cooperation between federal, state, and local govern- and Turrell, Hall, and Associates. ments and institutions is critical to prevent habitat Monitoring data have indicated that restoration fragmentation in regions vulnerable to development has successfully increased tidal flushing and removed (FDEP 2012). a substantial amount of standing freshwater from the die-off areas, consequently leading to natural revege- • A regional effort to map and characterize conditions, tation (Worley and Schmid 2010). Long-term viability prioritize restoration areas, and define monitoring and Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 95

management objectives for restoration would improve tab2236041/volume1/appendices/v1_app_7a-2.pdf, understanding and enhance management of coastal accessed July 2015. wetlands. Because of the range of participating orga- Conservancy of Southwest Florida. 2011. Estuaries nizations, an interagency team could provide the best report card. Naples, Florida. www.conservancy.org/ approach for developing and implementing a plan over document.doc?id=379, accessed July 2015. the long term. Finn M, Iglehart J, Kangas P. 1997. A taxonomy of • Monitoring vegetation and water quality will help spatial forms of mangrove die-offs in southwest identify locations of stress and changes over time Florida. Pp. 17–35 in Cannizzaro PJ (ed.). Proceedings (FDEP 2012). Unfortunately, most monitoring has been of the 24th Annual Conference on Ecosystem limited to specific hurricanes or individual projects due Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community to limited funding. Long-term monitoring is critical College, Tampa, Florida. images.library.wisc.edu/ to evaluating the success of restoration projects and EcoNatRes/EFacs/Wetlands/Wetlands24/reference/ developing management models to identify areas of econatres.wetlands24.mfinn.pdf, accessed July 2015. stress, and predicting recovery as a result of restoration Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and actions. Interagency cooperation in the restoration of Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2014. Cooperative mangrove forests along Florida’s southwest coast may land cover, version 3.0 GIS data set. myfwc.com/ also lead to valuable insights that can be shared with research/gis/applications/articles/Cooperative-Land- other regions and countries in the global effort to main- Cover, accessed July 2014. tain and regain coastal mangrove forests. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1981. Diagnostic feasibility study for Moorings Bay Collier County, Florida. Water Resources Restoration Works cited and Preservation Section. Tallahassee. naples. Abtew W, Ciuca V. 2011. Annual permit report for the granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=naples_ Tamiami trail culverts critical project – western b5171e046a4c9ff6ed8944e620425cb3.pdf, accessed phase. Pp. 1–16 in 2011 South Florida Environmental July 2015. Report Volume III, Chapter 2, Appendix 2–3. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. South Florida Water Management District, West 2012. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Palm Beach. my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/ Reserve management plan, January 2012–December pg_grp_sfwmd_sfer/portlet_prevreport/2011_sfer/v3/ 2017. Tallahassee. coast.noaa.gov/data/docs/nerrs/ appendices/v3_app2-3.pdf, accessed July 2015. Reserves_RKB_MgmtPlan.pdf, accessed July 2015. Barry MJ. 2009. Data summary of working vegetation Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. maps of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Florida land use, cover and forms classification Refuge. Grant Agreement No. 401817J105, submitted system, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Naples, Florida. Thematic Mapping Section. www.dot.state. Barry MJ, Hartley A, McCartney B. 2013. Vegetation fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/ mapping at Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed July 2015. Reserve. Submitted to the Friends of Rookery Bay, Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2010. Guide to the Naples, Florida. regionalconservation.org/ircs/pdf/ natural communities of Florida: 2010 edition. fnai. publications/2013_04.pdf, accessed July 2015. org/naturalcommguide.cfm, accessed July 2015. Barry MJ, van der Heiden C. 2015. Habitat mapping Jimenez JA, Lugo AE, Cintron G. 1985. Tree mortality in and trend analyses: Rookery Bay watershed discharge mangrove forests. Biotropica 17:177–185. locations. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Krauss KW, From AS, Doyle TW, Doyle TJ, Barry MJ. Delray Beach, Florida. regionalconservation.org/ircs/ 2011. Sea-level rise and landscape change influence pdf/publications/2015_2_RBNERR.pdf, accessed mangrove encroachment onto marsh in the Ten October 2015. Thousand Islands region of Florida, USA. Journal of Chuirazzi KJ, Duever MJ. 2008. Picayune strand Coastal Conservation 15:629–638. restoration project baseline. Pp. 1–68 in 2008 South Lewis RR III. 1990. Creation and restoration of coastal Florida environmental report, Volume I, Chapter 7, plain wetlands in Florida. Pp. 73–101 in Kusler JA, Appendix 7A-2. South Florida Water Management Kentula ME (eds.). Wetland creation and restoration: District, West Palm Beach. my.sfwmd.gov/portal/ the status of the science. Island Press, Washington, page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_sfer/portlet_sfer/ D.C . 96 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Lewis RR III. 2005. Ecological engineering for successful and creation. Hillsborough Community College, management and restoration of mangrove forests. Tampa, Florida. images.library.wisc.edu/EcoNatRes/ Ecological Engineering 24:403–418. EFacs/Wetlands/Wetlands19/reference/econatres. Lewis RR III, Brown B. 2014. Ecological mangrove wetlands19.mshirley.pdf, accessed July 2015. rehabilitation: A field manual for practitioners. www. Shrestha S, Dumre SR, Michot B, Meselhe E. 2011. mangroverestoration.com/pdfs/Final%20PDF%20 Hydrologic investigation across a marsh-mangrove -%20Whole%20EMR%20Manual.pdf, accessed July ecotone in Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife 2015. Refuge. University of Louisiana at Lafayette Center for McKee KL, Faulkner PL. 2000. Restoration of biogeo- Louisiana Inland Water Studies. Prepared for the U.S. chemical function in mangrove forests. Restoration Geological Survey National Wetlands Research Center. Ecology 8:247–259. Smith TJ III, Robblee MB, Wanless HR, and Doyle Neafsey EJ. 2014. Evaluating mangrove stress at Rookery TW. 1994. Mangroves, hurricanes, and lightning Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. University strikes. BioScience 44:256–262. of Virginia Department of Environmental Sciences. Smith TJ III, Anderson GH, Balentine K, Tiling G, Charlottesville, Virginia. Ward G, Whelan KRT. 2009. Cumulative impacts of Patterson SG. 1986. Mangrove community boundary hurricanes on Florida mangrove ecosystems: sediment interpretation and detection of areal changes in deposition, storm surges and vegetation. Wetlands Marco Island, Florida: Application of Digital Image 29:24–34. Processing and Remote Sensing Techniques. U.S. Soderqvist IE, Patino E. 2010. Seasonal and spatial Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 86. distribution of freshwater flow and salinity in the Ten Washington, D.C. www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/ Thousand Islands Estuary, Florida, 2007–2009. U.S. others/86_10.pdf, accessed July 2015. Geological Survey Data Series 501. Reston, Virginia. Peters B. 2001. Mangrove at the 18th hole: restoration pubs.usgs.gov/ds/501/pdf/ds501_report.pdf, accessed of the Windstar wetlands. Restoration and Recla- July 2015. mation Review. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, South Florida Water Management District. 2009a. Minnesota. 7:1–6. conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/ SFWMD GIS data catalogue. my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/ handle/11299/60132/7.3.Peters.pdf?sequence=1&isAl- sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp, accessed August 2015. lowed=y, accessed July 2015. South Florida Water Management District. 2009b. 2009 Proffitt CE, Devlin DJ. 2005. Long-term growth and SFWMD photointerpretation key. my.sfwmd.gov/ succession in restored and natural mangrove forests portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_ in southwestern Florida. Wetlands Ecology and pdf/2009_pi-key.pdf, accessed July 2015. Management 13:531–551. South Florida Water Management District and United Rutchey KT, Schall N, Doren RF, Atkinson A, Ross MS, States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Southern Jones DT, Madden M, Vilchek I, Bradley KA, Snyder Golden Gate Estates watershed planning assistance JR, Burch JN, Pernas T, Witcher B, Pyne M, White cooperative study. www.sfwmd.gov/sites/default/ R, Smith III TJ, Sadle J, Smith CS, Patterson ME, files/documents/sgg_wpa_coop_stdy_oct_2003.pdf, Gann GD. 2006. Vegetation classification for South accessed July 2015. Florida natural areas. U.S. Geological Survey Open- Staats E. 2014. Decades in the works, Picayune Strand file Report 2006-1240. Reston, Virginia. sofia.usgs. restoration efforts succeed despite a long, costly gov/publications/ofr/2006-1240/OFR_2006_1240.pdf, process. Naples Daily News, Naples, Florida. accessed July 2015. Turner RE, Lewis RR III. 1997. Hydrologic restoration Schmid JR, Worley K, Addison DS, Zimmerman AR, of coastal wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Van Eaton A. 2006. Naples bay past and present: Management 4:65–72. A chronology of disturbance to an estuary. South U.S. Census. 2015. United States Census Bureau state Florida Water Management District, Fort Myers, & county quick facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts, Florida. www.sfwmd.gov/sites/default/files/ accessed March 2017. documents/coswf_uf%20naplesbayfinalreport_ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Ten Thousand feb2006.pdf, accessed July 2015. Islands National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive Shirley, MA. 1992. Recolonization of a restored red conservation plan. Naples, Florida. catalog.data. mangrove habitat by fish and macroinvertebrates. gov/dataset/ten-thousand-islands-national-wildlife- Pp. 159–173 in Cannizzaro PJ (ed.). Proceedings of refuge-comprehensive-conservation-plan, accessed the 19th annual conference on wetlands restoration July 2015. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 97

Wanless HR, Tedesco IP, Risi JA, Bischof BG, Gelsanliter S. 1995. The role of storm processes on the growth and evolution of coastal and shallow marine sedimentary environments in South Florida. Pre-Congress Field Trip Guidebook. The 1st SEPM Congress on Sedimentary Geology, Society for Sedimentary Geology, St. Petersburg, Florida. Wier AM, Tattar TA, Klekowski EJ Jr. 2000. Disease of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) in southwest Puerto Rico caused by Cytospora rhizophorae. Bioptropica 32:299–306. Worley K. 2005. Mangroves as an indicator of estuarine condition in restoration areas. Pp. 247–260 in Bortone SA (ed.) Estuarine Indicators. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Worley K, Schimid JR. 2010. Clam Bay natural resource protection area (NRPA) benthic habitat assessment. Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Environmental Sciences Division. Naples. www.conservancy.org/ document.doc?id=442, accessed July 2015. Zysko D. 2011. Fruit Farm Creek mangrove restoration project. Joint SFWMD/ERP/USACE dredge and fill permit environmental supplement. The Ecology Group and Coastal Resources Group Inc., Venice, Florida.

General references and additional regional information Conservancy of Southwest Florida: www.conservancy.org Mangrove restoration references: www.mangroverestoration.com/html/downloads.html Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative compilation of Gulf of Mexico Surface Elevation Tables (SETS): gcpolcc.databasin.org/maps/ new#datasets=6a71b8fb60224720b903c770b8a93929

Regional contacts Jill Schmid, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, [email protected] Roy R. (Robin) Lewis III, Lewis Environmental Services Inc. and Coastal Resources Group Inc., [email protected] E.J. Neafsey, Florida Gulf Coast University Everglades Wetlands Research Park, [email protected] Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, [email protected] 98 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 8 Everglades

Kara R. Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Pablo L. Ruiz, National Park Service, South Florida/Caribbean Network Joseph M. Smoak, University of South Florida St. Petersburg Ryan P. Moyer, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the region The Everglades began to form 5,000 years ago when rising sea levels enabled the retention of freshwater in South Florida, allowing for peat deposition and the development of wetlands atop the Pleistocene marine limestone substrate (Hoffmeister 1974, Gleason and Stone 1994). The Everglades is bordered on the northwest by the Big Cypress Swamp and on the east by the Atlantic Coast- al Ridge, which functions as a natural barrier to surface water flow. The ecology and health of the Everglades are maintained by the quantity and quality of freshwater delivered to the system. Historically, the Everglades was tightly linked to a large watershed that encompassed much of central and southern Florida (Figure 8.1). Water meandered down the circuitous Kissimmee River to Lake Okeechobee, where it spilled over the southern edge of the lake into an expansive sawgrass marsh. The sheet of surface water then slowly made its way south, supporting a variety of freshwater marshes in the interior and mangroves and salt marshes along the coast. The interior ridge and slough landscape consists of dense stands of Cladium jamaicense (sawgrass) growing on ridges with a slightly higher elevation than the adjacent parallel sloughs of water. The C. jamaicense marsh is interspersed with bayhead and tropical hardwood hammock forest commu- Figure 8.1. Historical flow of surface water in the South nities, or “tree islands,” that grow atop elevated limestone Florida watershed. Figure credit: Chris Anderson, based or woody peat outcrops (Armentano et al. 2002). Ma- on CERP 2014. jor hydrologic pathways through the Everglades include Shark River Slough which flows into Whitewater Bay, and Everglades, although in some locations they are pushed Taylor Slough, which flows into Florida Bay (Figure 8.2). farther inland by marl, shell, and sand berms. Salt marsh- The low elevation and gentle topography of South es dominated by Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush) Florida supports broad swaths of coastal wetlands (Fig- and Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) are found ure 8.3). Mangroves line almost the entire coast of the inland of these mangroves (Lodge 2010). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 99

Figure 8.2. Major features of the current South Florida watershed. 100 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 8.3. Salt marsh and mangrove extent in the Everglades. Data source: SFWMD 2004–2005 and 2009 land use/land cover data, based upon FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009a). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 101

zophora mangle (red mangrove) is predominant in the lower nutrient forests 3–6 mi (5–10 km) upstream (Chen and Twilley 1999).

Hydrologic alterations Massive hydrologic changes have drastically altered abiotic conditions in the Everglades ecosystem (Figure 8.2). Although hydrologic adjustments began in the late 1800s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Central and South- ern Florida Project completed major changes to hydrology in the 1950s and 1960s. The goals of Central and Southern Florida Project were to prevent floods and to drain lands for agriculture and development through a series of levees, impoundments, pumps, and canals. Ulti- mately, these efforts resulted in the diversion of natural surface water into constructed channels that ushered freshwater out to sea (Huber et al. 2006). The Herbert Hoover Dike prevented water from seeping over the southern edge of Lake Okeechobee. Instead, freshwater was released through a network of canals to the east coast of Florida and to the Caloosahatchee Riv- er (Figure 8.2). The resulting drainage of land south of Lake Okeechobee enabled the develop- Figure 8.4. Extent of mangrove swamps and salt marshes in ment of the expansive Everglades Agricultural 1943, before the hydrologic changes of the Central and South Area. Water continued to flow south from the Florida Project. Data source: Davis 1943. Everglades Agricultural Area, and high-nutrient agricultural runoff resulted in the subsequent Small changes in elevation determine the distribution proliferation of Typha spp. (cattails) in the historically of different vegetative communities. For instance, an ad- oligotrophic ecosystem (Chimney and Goforth 2001, Hu- ditional 3.3–4.9 ft (1–1.5 m) of elevation on intermittent ber et al. 2006). The spread of agriculture and urbaniza- ridges enable the growth of tropical hardwood forest tion have reduced the area of the Everglades by 50%, and communities (Armentano et al. 2002). Florida Bay con- a large proportion of the remaining undeveloped areas tains 237 islands made of marl, mangrove peat, and sand. is used as water conservation areas (Figure 8.2; Chimney Habitat varies depending on island elevation but can in- and Goforth 2001). While the interior of the Everglades clude tropical hardwood trees, mangroves, or algal flats has been significantly altered by the Central and South- (Armentano et al. 2002). ern Florida Project, Everglades Agricultural Area, water Because the Everglades are naturally limited in phos- conservation areas, and human development, vegetation phorus, the ocean is the main source of nutrients for shifts are also apparent in coastal wetlands. The most coastal plant growth there (Childers et al. 2005, Davis et noticeable difference in vegetation extent between 1943 al. 2005, Castañeda-Moya et al. 2013). Salinity incursions (Figure 8.4) and today (Figure 8.3) is the expansion of during the dry season provide phosphorus to plants in the mangrove swamps at the expense of salt marshes. oligohaline marsh. Mangrove productivity, basal area, Disturbances due to human alterations in the natural and aboveground biomass increase toward the coast, hydrology were first reported in the Everglades as early as likely due to increasing phosphorus availability near the 1938 (Chimney and Goforth 2001). Extensive drying of ocean (Chen and Twilley 1999, Childers et al. 2005, Davis the Everglades resulted in soil loss via oxidation, fires, loss et al. 2005). In the Shark River estuary, the high-nutrient of tree islands, invasion of nonnative species, and wide- mangrove forests along the coast are typically dominated spread changes in the Florida Bay ecosystem (McIvor et by Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove), while Rhi- al. 1994, Chimney and Goforth 2001, Huber et al. 2006). 102 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Awareness of the extensive environmental damage caused • Cape Sable: Cape Sable (Figure 8.3) is the area of the by human activity has led current and planned endeavors Everglades least affected by urbanization and mainland to be focused on conservation and restoration (Chimney hydrologic alterations because it is separated from the and Goforth 2001, Huber et al. 2006). Major goals of the Florida mainland by Whitewater Bay (Wanless and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) in- Vlaswinkel 2005, Wingard and Lorenz 2013). Cape Sa- clude ecological management of Lake Okeechobee and ble includes extensive mangrove forests, many of which increasing freshwater sheet flow to the Everglades and are dwarf mangroves (Zhang 2011, Wingard and Lo- adjacent estuaries. renz 2013). The region has not entirely escaped modi- A large portion of the Everglades is encompassed by Ev- fication; in the 1920s ditches were dug through coast- erglades National Park. Although authorized by Congress al berms to connect the interior lakes, which enabled in 1934, Everglades National Park was not officially estab- saltwater intrusion (Wanless and Vlaswinkel 2005). lished until 1947 (USNPS 1979). In the 1970s and 1980s, Increased tidal and current strength due to sea-level rise Everglades National Park was recognized as a Biosphere have increased coastal erosion, redistributed sediment, Reserve, UNESCO World Heritage Site, and Wetland of created new tidal creeks, and increased tidal reach. As International Importance; it is one of only three sites in the a result of saltwater inundation, the underlying peat in world to be placed on all three lists (USFWS 1999a). the formerly freshwater marshes is decaying, further Several regions in and around the Everglades have decreasing substrate elevations on the interior of the unique ecosystems as a result of their hydrology and loca- cape (Wanless and Vlaswinkel 2005). Loss of freshwa- tion. These regions include Florida Bay, Cape Sable, and ter wetlands, in Cape Sable and elsewhere in the Ever- the Southeast Saline Everglades. glades, constitutes a threat to endangered species such • Florida Bay: A broad, shallow bay south of the Ev- as Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis (the Cape Sable erglades (Figure 8.3), Florida Bay was historically Seaside Sparrow) (USFWS 1999b). characterized by clear waters and extensive seagrass • The Southeast Saline Everglades (the white zone): beds. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, large-scale The land northeast of Florida Bay has been named ecological shifts resulted in widespread algal blooms the Southeast Saline Everglades (Egler 1952, Ross et al. and mortality of mangroves, seagrass beds, sponges, 2000). Prior to development and hydrologic alterations lobsters, and shrimp (McIvor et al. 1994). A myriad in South Florida, mangrove shrubs grew on the coast of problems were associated with these die-offs, in- in a thin band that gradually transitioned to a sparse cluding hypersaline waters, hypoxia, heat stress, and mangrove-graminoid marsh, and sawgrass-dominated decreased water clarity due to phytoplankton blooms freshwater marshes several kilometers inland (Ross et and turbidity (Fourqurean and Robblee 1999). While al. 2002). Restricted freshwater flows and highly vari- the ultimate causes of this complicated ecological able soil salinities constrain plant growth in this region. shift remain unclear, it is thought to be linked to loss From an aerial view, most of the Southeast Saline Ev- of freshwater flow, hypersaline conditions, abnor- erglades appears white due to the low vegetative cover mally warm temperatures, and increased amounts of and the highly reflective nature of the marl substrate sediment in the bay (Fourqurean and Robblee 1999). and so has been named the white zone (Figure 8.3; Ross Extensive mangrove mortality events occurred in et al. 2000, Browder et al. 2005, Briceño et al. 2011). 1991 and 1992, particularly in the north-central part The vegetation in the white zone is generally not tall of the bay. The cause of these die-offs is thought to or dense enough to be categorized as mangrove forest be linked to hypersalinity (McIvor et al. 1994, Four- under most land-cover classification systems. In most qurean and Robblee 1999). The salinity in Florida Bay cases, the vegetation consists of short mangrove shrub mangrove swamps depends upon tidal inundation and land or scrub with few grasses. freshwater runoff from Taylor Slough and the C-111 Since the 1940s the white zone has expanded land- canal (Figure 8.2 and 8.3). The amount of freshwater ward by approximately 0.9 mile (1.5 km) as a result reaching Florida Bay is much less than historical lev- of reduced surface freshwater flow to the Southeast els; models reveal that salinities are higher in the eury- Saline Everglades and sea-level rise (Ross et al. 2000). haline marshes bordering Florida Bay than they were Between 1940 and 1994, the white zone shifted the prior to human development (Marshall et al. 2009). A least where surface freshwater was not restricted by similar Florida Bay seagrass die-off in 2015 has also roads or levees, demonstrating that freshwater flow been linked to hypersalinity, stratification, and anoxia can lessen the landward transgression of the white (Hall et al. 2016). zone (Ross et al. 2000). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 103

Figure 8.5. Presence of dead Taxodium spp. (cypress) in the southeast saline Everglades resulting from Hurricane Betsy. Note the presence of Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove) seedlings within the mixed marsh of Cladium jamaicense (sawgrass) and Eleocharis cellulosa (Gulf coast spikerush). Photo credit: Pablo L. Ruiz.

Impact of tropical storms and hurricanes els remained elevated for several months (Alexander 1967). While many trees died as a direct result of wind damage, Tropical storms and hurricanes continually shape this the elevated soil chloride levels had the greatest impact on unique ecosystem. The category 5 Labor Day hurricane the vegetation of the region, particularly in the marsh. Ex- that struck South Florida in 1935 caused extensive mortali- tensive areas of C. jamaicense were killed and were quickly ty to the coastal mangrove forest. The great girth and height replaced by Eleocharis cellulosa (Gulf coast spikerush) (Al- of South Florida mangroves before the hurricane indicated exander 1967). The effects of Hurricane Betsy are still evi- that the region had likely not suffered such a severe storm dent in the landscape, with dead Taxodium spp. (cypress) for many decades (Craighead and Gilbert 1962, Armenta- snags a common sight in the landscape (Figure 8.5). no et al. 2002). Hurricanes Donna (1960) and Betsy (1965) In 1992, Hurricane Andrew crossed Florida, passing also significantly affected many of the coastal communities over the Everglades and destroying more than 70,000 of the Everglades (Figure 8.5). Hurricane Donna severely acres (28,329 ha) of mangroves and causing extensive damaged the mangrove belt between Flamingo and Lost- defoliation (Wanless et al. 1994, Armentano et al. 2002). man’s River; with few exceptions all mangrove trees greater Near the coastline, more than 90% of trees were uproot- than 5 cm (1.9 in.) in diameter were sheared off at 6.6 ft (2 ed or snapped (Smith et al. 1994, Wanless et al. 1994). m) above the ground (Craighead and Gilbert 1962). In 1965, Some storm-damaged forests recovered, but others transi- Hurricane Betsy crossed the southern tip of Florida with tioned into an intertidal environment. Many Conocarpus winds of 109 mph (175 km/hr). A tidal surge increased soil erectus (buttonwood) forests were converted to mangrove chloride levels to as high as 19,000 ppm, and chloride lev- swamps or halophytic prairie due to the saltwater inunda- 104 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors tion and substrate changes (Armentano et al. 2002). The If peat accumulation cannot keep pace with sea-lev- abundance of palms and hardwoods in the coastal Ever- el rise, mangroves will move inland and the shoreline glades has also declined due to transition into mangrove will erode (Davis et al. 2005). Increased wave activi- swamps and salt flats. ty would increase erosion and exposure of mangrove peat, making the organic matter vulnerable to oxida- Threats to coastal wetlands tion. Oxidation may be avoided if organic carbon is transported inland and reburied as storm-surge depos- • Hydrologic alteration: Although the coastal wetlands its (Smoak et al. 2013). in Everglades National Park are protected from direct impacts of urbanization, they are highly vulnerable • Invasive vegetation: As in much of Florida, invasive to hydrologic changes and natural disturbances. Ac- plants, such as Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pep- cording to hydrologic models, water levels in the ma- per), Colubrina asiatica (latherleaf), Lygodium micro- jor sloughs of the Everglades are a half foot (0.15 m) phyllum (Old World climbing fern), and Melaleuca quin- lower than historical levels; likewise freshwater de- quenervia (melaleuca) continue to expand their acreage livery to coastal wetlands and estuaries is 2.5–4 times and outcompete native plants on the edges of coastal less than predrainage levels (Marshall et al. 2009). As wetlands in southern Florida (USFWS 1999a, Davis et a result of reduced freshwater input, the coastal wet- al. 2005, Wingard and Lorenz 2013). Invasive vegetation lands bordering Florida Bay have experienced greater is particularly threatening after a disturbance, as it can saltwater inundation and reduced hydroperiods. While outpace the regrowth of native vegetation. historical average salinity in Florida Bay is estimated to have ranged from 3 to 30 (Marshall et al. 2009), average Mapping and monitoring efforts salinity ranged from 23 to 39 in a time series from 1998 through 2004 (Kelble et al. 2007). Water management district mapping Additionally, many tidal creeks along the lower Ev- erglades have been filled in by vegetation and sediment The South Florida Water Management District as a result of low freshwater flow and nutrients provided (SFWMD) has conducted land use/land cover (LULC) by rising sea levels (Davis et al. 2005). Choked water- surveys approximately every five years since 1995. The ways and reduced flushing are detrimental to wetlands 2008–2009 land cover maps were created using SFWMD as flushing by salt water or freshwater is important for modifications to the Florida Land Use and Cover Classifi- the resiliency and long-term viability of wetlands (Davis cation System (FLUCCS) (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009b). et al. 2005, Wanless and Vlaswinkel 2005). Minimum mapping units were 5 acres (2 ha) for uplands and 2 acres (0.8 ha) for wetlands. The 2008–2009 LULC • Climate change and sea-level rise: The impact of maps (shown in Figure 8.3) were made by interpreting reduced freshwater flow is exacerbated by saltwater aerial photography and updating 2004–2005 vector data intrusion due to storm surges and sea-level rise. Salt (SFWMD 2009b). water has already extended into formerly oligohaline and freshwater marshes in the coastal Everglades, and mangrove habitat has expanded inland (Ross et al. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 2000, Davis et al. 2005, Smith et al. 2013). Groundwater monitoring resources are also at risk of contamination by salt water (Wanless et al. 1994). Models indicate that inundation Project reports, monitoring information, and feasi- due to sea-level rise will be gradual at first but then will bility studies produced under CERP are available at the accelerate in some regions due to topography (Zhang CERP website www.evergladesrestoration.gov/, including 2011). Much of South Florida is a natural depression the 2014 System Status Report (CERP 2014). with moderate elevation, so inundation progresses rapidly once sea level reaches a threshold (4.1 ft/1.25 m is Long-term Ecological Research the threshold in Miami-Dade County). If natural bar- mapping and monitoring riers such as the Atlantic Coastal Ridge or the Big Cy- press Swamp Ridge are breached, saltwater inundation The National Science Foundation’s Long-term Ecologi- would flood large portions of the Everglades (Wanless cal Research (LTER) network includes a section in the Flor- et al. 1994). Even a conservatively estimated sea-level ida Coastal Everglades. This program, based at Florida In- rise of 1.6 ft (0.5 m) would inundate much of Ever- ternational University, was established in 2000 and involves glades National Park. the collaboration of many governmental, academic, and Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 105 independent organizations. Interactive vegetation maps of habitat has been attributed to sea-level rise. Marsh fires did the Everglades, created by the University of Georgia, the not prevent landward mangrove expansion. National Park Service, and SFWMD, are available at the Florida Coastal Everglades LTER website (fcelter.fiu.edu). G-LiHT mapping National Park Service’s South Florida/ In May 2015, NASA used Goddard’s LiDAR, Hyper- spectral, and Thermal (G-LiHT) airborne imager to collect Caribbean Network mapping data in Everglades National Park (Cook et al. 2013, gliht. The South Florida/Caribbean Network, the U.S. Army gsfc.nasa.gov). G-LiHT acquisitions along the Shark, Tay- Corps of Engineers, and the South Florida Water Manage- lor, and Harney rivers targeted critical vegetation and hy- ment District are collaborating to create vegetation maps drologic and salinity gradients that coincided with ground of Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Pre- plots in marshes, mangroves, river mouths, and aquatic serve. These maps will provide information on pre-CERP plant communities (David Lagomasino and Bruce Cook, baseline reference conditions, documenting the spatial ex- personal communication). The complementary nature of tent and pattern of vegetation communities before CERP LiDAR, optical data, and thermal data provides an analyti- was implemented. This mapping will characterize the eco- cal framework for the development of new algorithms that system at the species-level at a spatial resolution of 0.6 acre will enable researchers to map plant species composition, (0.25 ha) (USNPS and USACE 2012, Giannini et al. 2015). functional types, biodiversity, biomass, carbon stocks, and plant growth. G-LiHT data will also be used to support Everglades vegetation model satellite missions (e.g., PACE, HyspIRI) and provide a link for upscaling field data to long-term satellite observa- Everglades Landscape Vegetation Succession (ELVeS) tions (e.g., Landsat) for studying multitemporal landscape is an open-source model written in Java that simulates dynamics. changes in vegetation in response to varying abiotic conditions. Led by the South Florida Natural Resourc- es Center of Everglades National Park, this Everglades Recommendations for protection, model is based on vegetation niches, replacement prob- management, and monitoring abilities, and time lags for transition periods. The model is available for download and use at www.cloudacus.com/ • While the ecosystem-scale shifts that occurred in Florida simglades/ELVeS.php. Bay in the early 1990s were linked to many factors, the mangrove die-offs were specifically attributed to hypersaline conditions (McIvor et al. 1994, Fourqurean and Mangrove height mapping Robblee 1999). To prevent future die-offs, the frequency, In 2006, mangrove height was mapped in Everglades severity, and geographic extent of hypersaline conditions National Park using data from the National Aeronautics must be reduced. The quantity, timing, and distribution and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Shuttle Radar To- of freshwater needs to be restored in order to maintain pography Mission (Simard et al. 2006). These data were estuarine conditions in Florida Bay and the Everglades. calibrated with airborne LiDAR (Light Detection and • Sea-level rise must be taken into account when assessing Ranging) and a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital el- freshwater needs for Everglades restoration projects. evation model. Field data were then used to extrapolate The freshwater needs of coastal wetlands will increase mangrove biomass from tree height. Average tree height as seawater inundation increases with sea-level rise. was found to be around 26 ft (8 m). This data set could provide a baseline against which to monitor ecological re- • While sea-level rise and increased strength of coastal sponses to restoration plans or ecological shifts. storms will result in greater coastal erosion and widening of tidal creeks, attempts to stop creek widening and close canals in locations such as Cape Sable are not Mangrove expansion mapping recommended as these changes would likely have un- Smith et al. (2013) created detailed maps documenting intended consequences and result in erosion elsewhere shifts in mangrove swamp and marsh habitat in three loca- (Wanless and Vlaswinkel 2005). tions in the Everglades. In two of the three sites examined, • Cape Sable, Florida Bay, and the Southeast Saline Ever- the acreage of mangrove habitat expanded and marsh area glades may serve as sentinel indicators of how rising sea declined from 1928 to 2004. This expansion in mangrove level may impact the Everglades as a whole. Therefore, 106 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

focused research on these regions may aid in adaptive estuaries of the Florida Everglades. Limnology and management and decision making (Wanless and Vlas- Oceanography 51:602–616. winkel 2005). Chimney MJ, Goforth G. 2001. Environmental impacts • The National Park Service has put together an extensive to the Everglades ecosystem: a historical perspective plan for combatting invasive species in the Everglades and restoration strategies. Water Science and (USNPS 2006). But the current management scenario Technology 44:93–100. (www.evergladesrestoration.gov/content/ies/ies.html), Cook BD, Corp IA, Nelson RF, Middleton EM, Morton based on opportunistic treatment and available funding, DC, Mccorkel JT, Masek JG, Ranson KJ, Ly V, does not involve a standardized monitoring protocol. Montesano PM. 2013. NASA Goddard’s LiDAR, This plan should be augmented, however, to include a Hyperspectral and thermal (G-LiHT) airborne systematic approach for identifying, monitoring, and imager. Remote Sensing 5:4045–4066. evaluating the effectiveness of the removal of nonnative Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program. 2014. species. Active restoration, including the planting of na- 2014 system status report. National Park Service, tive species could further increase the success of com- South Florida Water Management District, U.S. bating invasive vegetation in high-priority areas. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 141.232.10.32/pm/ssr_2014/mod_scs_2014. aspx, accessed April 2015. Works cited Craighead FC, Gilbert T. 1962. The effects of Hurricane Alexander TR. 1967. Effects of Hurricane Betsy on the Donna on the vegetation of southern Florida. Quarterly southeastern Everglades. The Quarterly Journal of Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 25:1–28. the Florida Academy of Sciences 39:10–24. Davis JH Jr. 1943. Vegetation map of southern Florida. Armentano TV, Jones DT, Ross MS, Gamble BW. 2002. Figure 71 in The natural features of Southern Vegetation pattern and process in tree islands of the Florida, especially the vegetation, and the Everglades. southern Everglades and adjacent areas. Pp. 225–281 Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 25. ufdc.ufl.edu/ in Sklar F, van der Valk A (eds). Tree islands of the UF00015184/00001, accessed February 2016. Everglades. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Davis SM, Childers DL, Lorenz JJ, Wanless HR, Massachusetts. Hopkins, TE. 2005. A conceptual model of ecological Briceño HO, Boyer JN, Harlem P. 2011. Ecological interactions in the mangrove estuaries of the Florida impacts on Biscayne Bay and Biscayne National Everglades. Wetlands 25:832–842. Park from proposed south Miami-Dade county Egler FE. 1952. Southeast saline Everglades vegetation, development, and derivation of numeric nutrient Florida, and its management. Vegetatio Acta criteria for South Florida estuaries and coastal Geobotanica 3:213–265. waters. Florida International University–Southeast Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Environmental Research Center, Miami. www. land use, cover and forms classification system, evergladesrestoration.gov/content/bbrrct/documents/ 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, Thematic Ecological_Impacts_on_Biscayne_Bay.pdf, accessed Mapping Section. www.fdot.gov/geospatial/ August 2015. documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed Browder JA, Alleman R, Markely S, Ortner P, Pitts PA. August 2015. 2005. Biscayne Bay conceptual ecological model. Fourqurean JW, Robblee MB. 1999. Florida Bay: a Wetlands 25:854–869. history of recent ecological changes. Coastal and Castañeda-Moya E, Twilley RR, Rivera-Monroy Estuarine Research Federation 22:345–357. VH. 2013. Allocation of biomass and net primary Giannini HC, Ruiz PL, Schall TN. 2015. The vegetation productivity of mangrove forests along environmental mapping project of Everglades National Park and Big gradients in the Florida Coastal Everglades, USA. Cypress National Preserve. Poster session presented Forest Ecology and Management 307:226–241. at: Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration 2015, Chen R, Twilley RR. 1999. Patterns of mangrove forest April 21–23, 2015, Coral Springs, Florida. www. structure and soil nutrient dynamics along the Shark conference.ifas.ufl.edu/GEER2015/Documents/ River Estuary, Florida. Estuaries 22:955–970. Poster%20PDFs/Giannini%20et%20al%20%20-%20 Childers DL, Boyer JN, Davis III SE, Madden CJ, Vegetation%20Mapping%20of%20Everglades%20 Rudnick DT, Sklar FH. 2005. Nutrient concentration and%20Big%20Cypress%20-%20GEER2015%20 patterns in the oligotrophic “upside-down” -%20poster94.pdf, accessed August 2015. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 107

Gleason PJ, Stone P. 1994. Age, origin and landscape elevation data. Photogrammetric Engineering & evolution of the Everglades peatland. Pp. 149–197 in Remote Sensing 72:299–311. Davis SM, Ogden JC (eds). Everglades: the ecosystem Smith TJ III, Robblee MB, Wanless HR, Doyle TW. and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, 1994. Mangroves, hurricanes, and lightning strikes: Florida. assessment of Hurricane Andrew suggests an Hall MO, Furman BT, Merello M, Durako MJ. 2016. interaction across two differing scales of disturbance. Recurrence of Thalassia testudinum seagrass die-off BioScience 44:256–262. in Florida Bay, USA: initial observations. Marine Smith TJ III, Foster AM, Tiling-Range G, Jones JW. Ecology Progress Series 560:243-249. 2013. Dynamics of mangrove-marsh ecotones in Hoffmeister JE. 1974. Land from the sea: the geologic subtropical coastal wetlands: fire, sea-level rise, and history of South Florida. University of Miami Press, water levels. Fire Ecology 9:66–77. Coral Gables, Florida. Smoak JM, Breithaupt JL, Smith TJ III, Sanders CJ. Huber WC, Bedford BL, Blum IK, and others. 2006. 2013. Sediment accretion and organic carbon burial Progress toward restoring the Everglades: the first relative to sea-level rise and storm events in two biennial review. National Research Council. The mangrove forests in Everglades National Park. Catena National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. www. 104:58–66. nap.edu/catalog/11754/progress-toward-restoring-the- South Florida Water Management District. 2009a. everglades-the-first-biennial-review-2006, accessed SFWMD GIS data catalogue. http://apps.sfwmd. August 2015. gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?, accessed Kelble CR, Johns EM, Nuttle WK, Lee TN, Smith RH, August 2015. Ortner PB. 2007. Salinity patterns in Florida Bay. South Florida Water Management District. 2009b. 2009 Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 71:318–334. SFWMD photointerpretation key. my.sfwmd.gov/ Lodge TE. 2010. The Everglades handbook: portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_ understanding the ecosystem, 3rd ed. CRC Press, pdf/2009_pi-key.pdf, accessed August 2015. Boca Raton, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. The South Florida Marshall FE III, Wingard L, and Pitts P. 2009. A ecosystem. Pp. 2-1 to 2-84 in Multi-species recovery simulation of historic hydrology and salinity in plan. www.fws.gov/verobeach/listedspeciesMSRP. Everglades National Park: coupling paleoecologic html, accessed August 2015. assemblage data with regression models. Estuaries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Cape Sable Seaside and Coasts 32:37–53. Sparrow. Pp. 4-345 to 4-370 in Florida Fish and McIvor CC, Ley JA, Bjork RD. 1994. Changes in Wildlife Service multi-species recovery plan. www. freshwater inflow from the Everglades to Florida Bay fws.gov/verobeach/listedspeciesMSRP.html, accessed including effects on the biota and biotic processes: August 2015. a review. Pp. 117–146 in Davis SM, Ogden JC (eds). U.S. National Park Service. 1979. Everglades National Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Park master plan. https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/ Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. management/upload/1979%20EVER%20Master%20 Ross MJ, Meeder JF, Sah JP, Ruiz PL, Telesnicki GJ. Plan.PDF, accessed August 2015. 2000. The southeast saline Everglades revisited: U.S. National Park Service. 2006. South Florida and 50 years of coastal vegetation change. Journal of Caribbean parks exotic plant management plan and Vegetation Science 11:101–112. environmental impact statement, Volume 1. park- Ross MS, Gaiser EE, Meeder JF, Lewin MT. 2002. planning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=374&pro- Multi-taxon analysis of the “white zone,” a common jectID=10033&documentID=16855, accessed August ecotonal feature of South Florida coastal wetlands. 2015. Pp. 205–238 in Porter JW, Porter KG (eds). The U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Army Corps of Everglades, Florida Bay, and coral reefs of the Florida Engineers. 2012. Vegetation map of Everglades Keys: an ecosystem sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve fact Raton, Florida. sheet. 141.232.10.32/docs/fs_eg_veg_map_nps_usace_ Simard M, Zhang K, Rivera-Monroy VH, Ross MS, june_2012.pdf, accessed August 2015. Ruiz PL, Castañeda-Moya E, Twilley RR, Rodriguez Wanless HR, Parkinson RW, Tedesco IP. 1994. Sea-level E. 2006. Mapping height and biomass of mangrove control on stability of Everglades wetlands. Pp. forests in Everglades National Park with SRTM 199–23 in Davis SM, Ogden JC (eds). Everglades: The 108 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. Wanless HR, Vlaswinkel BM. 2005. Coastal landscape and channel evolution affecting critical habitats at Cape Sable, Everglades National Park, Florida. Paleo- Everglades Drainage. University of Miami, Miami, Florida. www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/upload/ SecureCapeSableFinalReport050615.pdf, accessed August 2015. Wingard GL, Lorenz J. 2013. Habitat: coastal wetlands. Pp. 87–108 in Nuttle WK Fletcher PJ (eds). Integrated conceptual ecosystem model development for the southwest Florida shelf coastal marine ecosystem. NOAA Technical Memorandum, OAR-AOML-102 and NOS-NCCOS-162. Miami, Florida. www.aoml. noaa.gov/general/lib/TM/TM_OAR_AOML_102. pdf, accessed August 2015. Zhang K. 2011. Analysis of non-linear inundation from sea-level rise using LIDAR data: a case study for South Florida. Climate Change 106:537–565.

General references and additional regional information Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program: https://evergladesrestoration.gov/ Everglades National Park: www.nps.gov/ever/index.htm Florida Coastal Everglades Long Term Ecological Research Network: fcelter.fiu.edu/ National Parks Conservation Association, State of the Parks: www.npca.org/resources/1138-center-for-state-of-the-parks-florida-bay#sm.0000o5ohz- abcwdf6zwl1hwpkh5khb South Florida/Caribbean Network: science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sfcn/index.cfm Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conserva- tion Cooperative, Compilation of Gulf of Mexico Surface Elevation Tables (SETS): https://gcpolcc. databasin.org/datasets/6a71b8fb60224720b903c- 770b8a93929

Regional contacts Pablo L. Ruiz, National Park Service, South Florida/ Caribbean Network, [email protected] Joseph M. Smoak, University of South Florida St. Pe- tersburg, [email protected] Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 109

Chapter 9 Florida Keys

Randy Grau, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Chris Bergh, The Nature Conservancy Curtis Kruer, Coastal Resources Group Inc. Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the region Conservation Commission (FWC), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), local governments, The Florida Keys (Figure 9.1) are a 130-mi-long (210 municipalities, and nongovernmental conservation organi- km) archipelago on the southern edge of the Florida car- zations. The FWC Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmen- bonate platform (Ross et al. 1992, FKNMS 2007). The is- tal Area, Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical lands are composed of Miami oolite and Key Largo lime- State Park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and stone, which formed during the last interglacial period of several other Keys state parks contain large areas of pro- the Pleistocene epoch (Hoffmeister and Multer 1968, Ross tected habitat. The acreage of protected land is projected to et al. 1992). Sediment types include rocky and organic soils, increase as purchases are acquired through Florida Forever calcareous muds, and carbonate sands (Hurt et al. 1995). and the Monroe County Land Authority. The highest elevation in the Keys is approximately 18 ft (5.5 Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove) lines approxi- m), but most of the islands do not extend higher than 6.6 mately 1,800 mi. (2,900 km) of shoreline in the Florida ft (2 m) above sea level (Ross et al. 1992). Native American Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS 2007). Avi- burial grounds and middens can be found in parts of the cennia germinans (black mangrove) and Laguncularia Keys and contribute to some local elevation (Goggin 1944). racemosa (white mangrove) are also found throughout Although a railroad to Key West was constructed in the Keys, often scattered among intertidal marshes the early 1900s, the Keys had relatively low development (USFWS 1999a). The freshwater wetlands also include until the completion of U.S. Highway 1 in the 1930s (Hurt many mangrove and Conocarpus erectus (buttonwood) et al. 1995). Today, tourism drives the economy, particu- trees interspersed in the Cladium jamaicense (sawgrass) larly for marine activities such as diving, snorkeling, and marshes (USFWS 1999a). Mangroves are an important charter and recreational fishing (FKNMS 2007). The pop- stabilizer for the Florida Keys, which are exposed to ulation of Monroe County, which includes the Keys and tropical storms and hurricanes. Dwarf trees with heights the western half of the Everglades is still relatively small, of 3.3–10 ft (1–3 m) are common as a result of limited at 77,480 in 2015 (U.S. Census 2015). nutrients, rocky substrates, and soils with low organic The archipelago is encompassed by the Florida Keys matter (Hurt et al. 1995, USFWS 1999b). In organic soil National Marine Sanctuary. Within this extent, the many in the Keys, R. mangle reaches heights of 10–20 ft (3–6 protected regions include Dry Tortugas National Park m) or more (Ross et al. 1994, Hurt et al. 1995). While (not included in Figure 9.1 due to a lack of land use/land most vegetation land cover data follow the standard cover data), Key West National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), mangrove and salt marsh classification schemes for the Great White Heron NWR, National Key Deer Refuge, and Florida Keys, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory adds Crocodile Lake NWR. Additionally, approximately 13,000 a subdivision called “Keys tidal rock barren” (see Figure acres (5,260 ha) of land acquired through various conser- 9.2) to classify areas of dwarf mangroves and C. erectus vation efforts are managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife on exposed limestone (FNAI 2010). 110 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 9.1. Mangrove and salt marsh coverage in the Florida Keys. Data source: SFWMD 2009 land use/land cover data, based upon FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009a).

Many of the coastal wetlands in the Florida Keys were be inundated. Under a high-end scenario (4.6 ft/1.4 m of ditched, filled in, and fragmented for mosquito control or sea-level rise by 2100), 96% of the island would be under in dredge-and-fill operations to build neighborhood ca- water (TNC 2009). nals and fill wetlands for development (FKNMS 2007, In the short term, mangroves are one of the few ecosys- TNC 2009). This wetland fragmentation decreased man- tems in the Keys that appear to be benefiting from sea-level grove forest size and increased edge-to-area ratio (Strong rise (Glazer 2013). In many areas, mangroves have already and Bancroft 1994). As of 1994, 15% of mangrove for- encroached on salt marshes and uplands. Between 1935 ests in the Upper Keys (Figure 9.1) had been cleared for and 1991 on Sugarloaf Key, mangrove habitat increased by development; losses were particularly high for areas close 47%, while upland habitat decreased by 31% (Ross et al. to important roads (Strong and Bancroft 1994). Loss 1992, Ross et al. 2009). Upland forest and freshwater eco- of coastal wetlands in the Keys has contributed to local systems can transition rapidly to mangroves due to the ef- problems with polluted surface runoff entering coastal fects of a single storm surge (Ross et al. 2009). Comparison waters (FKNMS 2002). of aerial photographs representing a span of about 60 years The low elevation of the Florida Keys makes them also shows the dramatic increase in R. mangle as it expands highly vulnerable to storm surge and sea-level rise. Up- in many areas of the Keys (Kruer, unpubl. data). While land forests of the Lower Keys have already lost many landward expansion is common throughout Florida, man- pine trees due to storms and saltwater intrusion (Ross et groves in the Florida Keys have also been noted to expand al. 2009). Even under an optimistic scenario of sea-level seaward into shallow seagrass flats as mangrove islands or rise (1.15 ft/0.35 m by 2100), models by The Nature Con- coastal mangrove fringe (Figure 9.3), in spite of the docu- servancy (TNC) predict that 31% of Big Pine Key will mented sea-level rise of about 3.5 cm/decade from 1971– Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 111

Figure 9.2. Mangrove, salt marsh, and Keys tidal rock barren extent in the Lower Florida Keys, as determined by the Cooperative Land Cover Map version 3.0 following the Florida Land Cover Classification System (Kawula 2009, FNAI 2010, FNAI and FWC 2014).

2015 in the Keys (NOAA 2013). This seaward mangrove mixed in with scrub R. mangle, L. racemosa, A. germi- expansion may be linked with local sediment accumulation nans, and C. erectus. Spartina spartinae (Gulf cordgrass) and a recent lack of strong tropical storms. These trends in dominates, but other Spartina species include S. alterni- mangrove expansion have broad impacts throughout local flora (smooth cordgrass), S. bakeri (sand cordgrass), and ecosystems. Although the expansion in available habitat is S. patens (saltmeadow cordgrass) (Ross et al 1992, Klett beneficial for mangrove-dependent species, it results in the et al. 2006). Other salt-tolerant vegetation includes Dis- loss of seagrass, salt marsh, or upland habitat. tichlis spicata (saltgrass), Sporobolus virginicus (seashore Mangroves also occur to a limited extent in Dry Tortu- dropseed), Fimbristylis spadicea (marsh fimbry), and Ba- gas National Park, although historical accounts note that tis maritima (saltwort) (FNAI 2010). Wetland subtypes mangroves are periodically killed by hurricanes (Doyle et include open scrub salt marsh and buttonwood-dominat- al. 2002). Mangroves that survive today face challenging ed scrub salt marsh (USFWS 2009). conditions, including erosion, an excess of pelican guano, a lack of freshwater, and low organic matter content in the Threats to Coastal Wetlands sediment on the coral islands (Doyle et al. 2002). The presence of all three mangrove species indicate the successful • Climate change and sea-level rise: The low elevation colonization of drifting propagules from the Florida Keys. and small land area render habitats in the Florida Keys Salt marshes are also found, to a lesser extent, in the highly vulnerable to sea-level rise and storm surges. Lower Keys (Figure 9.1). Herbaceous plants are often While upland habitats are the most vulnerable, salt 112 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 9.3. Mangrove expansion in Whale Harbor on Islamorada; aerial images from 1955 (left) and 2013. Mangrove expansion is evident landward on the islands and seaward in the flood tidal delta of the Whale Harbor inlet. Photo credits: Curtis Kruer (L) and Google Earth (R).

marshes also face steep declines in the face of rising sea out coastal wetlands to act as a natural filter, pollu- levels as they are inundated or are overtaken by man- tion due to stormwater runoff enters directly into the grove forests (Clough 2008). Mangrove area is expected ocean (FKNMS 2002). to continue expanding in the short term at the expense • Herbivory: Federal protection and the establishment of adjacent habitats. Some regions, such as Crocodile of the National Key Deer Refuge have allowed the Lake NWR, lack room for landward expansion of population of the Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus mangroves and will likely experience declines in man- clavium) on Big Pine and No Name keys to rebound grove extent this century (Clough and Larson 2010). from only 25–50 animals in the late 1940s to a pop- If sea-level rise progresses to 4.9 ft (1.5 m) or more by ulation estimated to be around 1,000 today (Lopez 2100, mangrove extent is predicted to eventually decline et al. 2004, Barrett and Stiling 2006, Hoffman 2015). in other Florida Keys regions as well (Clough 2008). The deer are selective grazers; as a result the abun- • Invasive species: Several invasive species are already al- dance of woody species preferred by the deer is lower tering natural Florida Keys communities. They include on islands with high deer populations (Barrett and Causaurina spp. (Australian pines), Schinus terebinthi- Stiling 2006). The density of small (<1.2 m) R. man- folius (Brazilian pepper), and Colubrina asiatica (lath- gle trees was lower and foliage was stripped from R. erleaf) (Hadden et al. 2005, USFWS 2009). Removal of mangle trees in areas with a high deer density (Bar- invasive species from publicly managed lands is made rett 2004). While the threats of herbivory may not more difficult due to the proximity of privately owned be as great a threat to Florida Keys habitats as are lands that are often landscaped with nonnative plants. sea-level rise and urbanization, the impacts of the • Urban development: Dredge-and-fill operations have Key deer highlight the need for ecosystem-level man- already removed large extents of coastal wetlands in agement in the Keys. the Keys, and human development also impacts remaining mangroves and salt marshes through altered Mapping and monitoring efforts hydrology. Increased impervious surfaces and ditches alter the flow of freshwater, already in short supply Water management district mapping due to the small land area available for collecting precipitation. A decline in coastal wetlands surrounding The South Florida Water Management District centers of urban development also has significant (SFWMD) conducts fairly regular land use/land cover impacts for surrounding coastal water quality. With- (LULC) surveys in the district. Land-cover classifications Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 113 for 2008–2009 LULC maps were based on SFWMD Recommendations for protection, modifications to the Florida Land Use and Cover Clas- management, and monitoring sification System (FLUCCS) (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009a). Minimum mapping units were 5 acres (2 ha) • Target specific areas for preservation that are represen- for uplands and 2 acres (0.8 ha) for wetlands. The most tative of all local habitats, have the best chances of sur- recent maps (Figure 9.1) were made by interpreting ae- viving sea-level rise, and have enough connectivity with rial photography and updating 2004–2005 vector data other habitats for sufficient gene flow among organism (SFWMD 2009b). populations (Ross et al. 2009). Given that sea-level rise is one of the primary threats to most habitats in the Local land cover mapping Florida Keys, the causes of climate change should be targeted, coupled with management and restoration of In 2009, Photo Science Inc., of St. Petersburg, Flori- resilient natural areas (TNC 2009). da, completed land use/land cover mapping of the Florida Keys for Monroe County (Photo Science 2009). The maps • Monitor, manage, and restore freshwater resources to were created from high-resolution orthophotographs a greater extent than at present due to their critical im- with a minimum mapping unit of 0.5 acre (0.2 ha) for all portance to wildlife including many listed species and classifications with the exception of hammocks, which migratory birds. Wetland restoration plans should take had a minimum mapping unit of 0.35 acre (0.14 ha). present and future freshwater resources into account, Classification categories included scrub mangrove (dwarf with regards to both saltwater intrusion and modifica- mangroves less than 5 ft/1.5 m tall), buttonwood, man- tion of surface hydrology by human development. grove, and salt marsh. • Continue successful, ongoing programs that restore, Wetland habitats were also mapped as part of Key protect, and enhance both tidal and nontidal wetlands deer–management efforts (Folk et al. 1991) and for the throughout the Keys (FWC 2004, Hobbs et al. 2006). Florida Keys Advance Identification Project (Kruer 1995). Continue to purchase strategic land to conserve Florida Mapped wetland communities included mangroves, salt Keys habitats against human development (FWC 2004). marsh, and buttonwood wetlands (Kruer 1995). Nontidal Habitat connectivity, long-term resilience, and freshwa- wetlands (freshwater sloughs, freshwater basins, and im- ter resources are key considerations for land purchases. pounded wetlands) also frequently included mangroves • Up-to-date mapping and monitoring of wetlands and and other salt-tolerant vegetation. adjacent upland vegetation would be useful in monitoring and quantifying habitat shifts. Data on mangrove Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model cover and density would be beneficial because present in the Florida Keys mapping does not record density of mangroves, which lessens the ability to observe and quantify changes in The Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) forest structure. has been used to model the impact of various scenarios of sea-level rise on the Florida Keys (Clough 2008, • Florida Keys NWR management plans often note the Clough and Larson 2010, Glazer 2013). The study pre- need for some mosquito ditches and unnecessary canals dicted that mangroves will continue to increase in acre- to be filled because they alter hydrology and often result age at the expense of higher-elevation habitats; therefore, in stagnant water (Klett et al. 2006, USFWS 2009). Deci- mangrove-dependent species may initially benefit from sions regarding ditch restoration should be made case by sea-level rise (Glazer 2013). In the National Key Deer case and should incorporate projections of sea-level rise Refuge, mangrove extent is predicted to increase under and freshwater flow as well as mosquito control consid- all but the most extreme. The extent of salt marsh, tran- erations. Ditch filling may be most beneficial for ditches sitional salt marsh, and brackish marsh are all expect- that drained or allowed saltwater intrusion into histori- ed to decline under all sea-level-rise scenarios (Clough cally nontidal wetlands (some of which are now domi- 2008). Within Crocodile Lake NWR, mangroves and nated by R. mangle and L. racemosa). Some ditches are tidal swamps are predicted to decline under all scenarios now important sources of freshwater to resident plants (Clough and Larson 2010). This result is due to the fact and animals. Thus, the preservation and enhancement of that the narrow barrier island does not offer much area scarce freshwater resources should be considered before for retreat, and the extensive mangrove forests lining the undertaking wetland restoration. Location-specific re- bay are overtaken by open water. search is needed to determine whether ditch filling would in fact be beneficial for surrounding habitats. 114 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

• Management objectives of the Florida Keys Nation- Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 2007. Florida al Marine Sanctuary, the NWRs in the Lower Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary revised management Keys, state managed lands, Monroe County and munic- plan. U.S. Department of Commerce, National ipalities frequently emphasize the importance of com- Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National bating invasive vegetation to protect mangrove habitats Ocean Service and National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS 2002, FWC 2004, TNC 2009, USFWS 2009). Program, Key West, Florida. floridakeys.noaa.gov/ Mapping and monitoring of the extent of invasive veg- mgmtplans/2007_man_plan.pdf, accessed May 2015. etation is critical to assessing effectiveness and optimiz- Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2010. Guide to the ing efforts (FWC 2004, Hobbs et al. 2006). Natural Communities of Florida: 2010 edition. fnai. org/naturalcommguide.cfm, accessed May 2015. Works cited Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2014. Barrett MA. 2004. An analysis of Key deer herbivory on Cooperative land cover map datasets. fnai.org/ forest communities in the lower Florida Keys. Graduate LandCover.cfm, accessed May 2015. dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa. Folk ML, Klimstra WD, Kruer CR. 1991. Habitat Barrett MA, Stiling, P. 2006. Impact of endangered Key evaluation: national Key deer range. Florida Game deer herbivory on imperiled pine rockland vegetation: and Freshwater Fish Commission, Project NG88-015. A conservation dilemma? Animal Biodiversity and Nongame Wildlife Program, Tallahassee. Conservation 29:165–178. Glazer R. 2013. Alternative Futures Under Climate Clough JS. 2008. Application of the sea level affecting Change for the Florida Keys Benthic and Coral marshes model (SLAMM 5.0) to National Key Systems. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Deer National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared for the Commission, Marathon. www.car-spaw-rac.org/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. IMG/pdf/Final_Report-_Glazer_-_KeysMAP-1.pdf, warrenpinnacle.com/prof/SLAMM/USFWS/ accessed May 2015. SLAMM_Natl_Key_Deer.doc, accessed May 2015. Goggin JM. 1944. Archaeological investigations on the Clough JS, Larson EC. 2010. Application of the sea level Upper Florida Keys. Tequesta 4:13–35. affecting marshes model (SLAMM 6) to Crocodile Hadden K, Frank K, Byrd C. 2005. Identification guide Lake NWR. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for invasive exotic plants of the Florida Keys. The Service by Warren Pinnacle Consulting Inc., Warren, Nature Conservancy. Prepared for the Florida Keys Vermont. warrenpinnacle.com/prof/SLAMM/USFWS/ Invasive Exotics Task Force. bugwoodcloud.org/ SLAMM_Crocodile_Island.doc, accessed May 2015. CDN/floridainvasives/workinggroups/InvasivePlants_ Doyle TW, Michot TC, Day RH, Wells CJ. 2002. History KeysIDGuide2005.pdf, accessed May 2015. and ecology of mangroves in the Dry Tortugas. U.S. Hobbs J, McNeese P, Kruer C. 2006. Pieces of the real Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-047-02, Lafayette, Florida Keys: twenty-five years of habitat restoration, Louisiana. www.nwrc.usgs.gov/factshts/047-02.pdf, 1981–2006. Keys Environmental Restoration Fund accessed May 2015. and National Audubon Society, Marathon, Florida. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida www.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/kerf_ land use, cover and forms classification system, 3rd summary_document_2006.pdf, accessed May 2015. edition. State Topographic Bureau, Thematic Mapping Hoffman EA. 2015. Effective population size and Section. www.fdot.gov/geospatial/documentsandpubs/ population structure in the Key deer, interim report. fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed May 2015. University of Central Florida and U.S. Fish and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Wildlife Service. 2004. A conceptual management plan for the Florida Hoffmeister JD, Multer HG. 1968. Geology and origin Keys wildlife and environmental area 2004–2014. of the Florida Keys. Geological Society of America Tallahassee. myfwc.com/media/132254/CMP_ Bulletin. 79:1487–1502. Florida_Keys_2004_2014.pdf, accessed May 2015. Hurt GW, Noble CV, Drew RW. 1995. Soil Survey of Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 2002. Florida Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida. United States Keys National Marine Sanctuary comprehensive Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources science plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Conservation Service. www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/ Administration. floridakeys.noaa.gov/research_ FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/florida/FL687/0/Monroe-Keys. monitoring/fknms_science_plan.pdf, accessed May pdf, accessed May 2015. 2015. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 115

Kawula R. 2009. Florida Land Cover Classification rise on the Florida Keys through the year 2100. frrp. System Final Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife org/SLR%20documents/FINAL%20-%20Aug%20 Conservation Commission. Tallahassee. myfwc. 21%20-WITH%20COVER.pdf, accessed May 2015. com/media/1205712/SWG%20T-13%20Final%20 U.S. Census. 2015. United States census bureau state Rpt_0118.pdf, accessed May 2015. & county quick facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts/, Klett S, Fischer V, Frank P. 2006. Crocodile Lake National accessed March 2017. Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Freshwater marshes and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife and wet prairies. Pp. 3-399 through 3-454 in South Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, Georgia. www.fws. Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan. www.fws.gov/ gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/Crocodile%20 verobeach/MSRPPDFs/FreshMarWetPrairie.pdf, Lake/Edited%20Draft%20CCP%20EA%20Croc%20 accessed May 2015. Lake.pdf, accessed May 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Mangroves. Pp. Kruer CR. 1995. Florida Keys advance identification 3-519 through 3-552 in South Florida Multi-species project, wetland and seasonal high water delineation. Recovery Plan. www.fws.gov/verobeach/MSRPPDFs/ Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Mangroves.pdf, accessed May 2015. Agency, Reg. 4, Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Lower Florida Keys Lopez RR, Silvy NJ, Pierce BL, Frank PA, Wilson MT, National Wildlife Refuges comprehensive conservation Burke KM. 2004. Population density of the endangered plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Florida Key deer. Wildlife Management 68:570–575. Region and U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Atlanta, Georgia. www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/ 2013. Tides and currents: sea-level trends. PDFdocuments/Florida%20Keys%20FINAL/ tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html, TheKeysFinalCCPFormatted.pdf, accessed May 2015. accessed May 2015. Photo Science Inc. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover General references and Dataset of the Florida Keys. Prepared for Monroe County, Growth Management Division. mc-gisweb. additional regional information monroecounty-fl.gov/Data%20Requests/GIS_ Kruczynski WL, Fletcher PJ (eds). 2012. Tropical DR.htm, accessed May 2015. connections: South Florida’s marine environment. Ian Ross MS, O’Brien JJ, Flynn IJ. 1992. Ecological site Press, Cambridge, Maryland. classification of Florida Keys terrestrial habitats. Biotropica 24:488–502. Coastal resilience mapping tools for the Florida Ross MS, O’Brien JJ, Sternberg IDS. 1994. Sea-level rise Keys, including sea level rise scenarios: maps. and the reduction in pine forests in the Florida Keys. coastalresilience.org/seflorida/# Ecological Applications 4:144–156. Coastal resilience Florida Keys and sea-level rise general Ross MS, O’Brien JJ, Ford RG, Zhang K, Morkill A. information: coastalresilience.org/project/southeast- 2009. Disturbance and the rising tide: the challenge florida-and-the-florida-keys/ of biodiversity conservation in low-island ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:471–478. Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation South Florida Water Management District. 2009a. Cooperative compilation of Gulf of Mexico surface SFWMD GIS Data Catalogue. my.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/ elevation tables (SETS) gcpolcc.databasin.org/ sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp, accessed May 2015. datasets/6a71b8fb60224720b903c770b8a93929 South Florida Water Management District. 2009b. 2009 SFWMD Photointerpretation Key. my.sfwmd.gov/ Regional contacts portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_ Chris Bergh, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] pdf/2009_pi-key.pdf, accessed May 2015. Strong AM, Bancroft GT. 1994. Patterns of deforestation Curtis Kruer, Coastal Resources Group Inc., and fragmentation of mangrove and deciduous [email protected] seasonal forests in the Upper Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 54:795–804. The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Initial estimates of the ecological and economic consequences of sea level 116 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 10 Biscayne Bay

Kara R. Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Sharon Ewe, Florida Coastal Everglades Long Term Ecological Research Pablo L. Ruiz, National Park Service, South Florida/Caribbean Network

Description of the region and Ross 2004). Historically freshwater wetlands, such as Snake Creek, Oleta River, and Card Sound, now host Biscayne Bay was formed between 5,000 and 2,400 salt- tolerant plants including mangroves (Ball 1980, Gais- years ago when rising sea levels flooded a limestone deer and Ross 2003, SFNRC 2006). pression on the Miami Ridge, creating a shallow estua- Freshwater also enters Biscayne Bay from upwelling rine lagoon (FDEP 2013). The bay is partly sheltered from of the Biscayne Aquifer. The aquifer is a subterranean the Atlantic Ocean by the Florida Keys and barrier islands wedge of water-bearing, highly-permeable limestone bed- off Miami (Figure 10.1). The Atlantic Coastal Ridge, an rock that extends across Miami-Dade County; it reach- oolitic limestone feature that reaches a maximum eleva- es its maximum thickness of 240 ft (73 m) at the eastern tion of 20 ft (6.1 m), runs along part of Biscayne Bay’s edge of the bay (CERP 2010). Since the aquifer is highly western shore and separates the Everglades from the At- permeable, at shallow depths it is susceptible to ground- lantic Ocean. Biscayne Bay once had a strong hydrologic water contamination. The Biscayne Aquifer is one of the connection to the Everglades via rivers and creeks that ran most important natural resources in the area, supplying through and around the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. Fresh- public water for Miami-Dade, Broward, and southern water entered the bay as a diffuse sheet of surface water Palm Beach counties. Flow from freshwater springs into from the surrounding wetlands and through groundwater Biscayne Bay declined in the early 1900s when altered Ev- springs (Browder et al. 2005). erglades hydrology lowered the water table (FDEP 2013). The hydrology of the region was drastically altered in Groundwater levels continued to decline due to increasing the late 1800s and 1900s by the construction of dredged urban and agricultural demand for freshwater. ditches, canals, and levees for the purpose of managing Biscayne Bay is adjacent to the most heavily populated surface water and enabling urban development and ag- region in Florida. In 2015, the population of Miami-Dade riculture. These water management structures cut off County was estimated at 2.7 million and grew 7.8% be- much of the surface freshwater flow, resulting in the tween 2010 and 2015 (U.S. Census 2015). The Port of Mi- loss of the many small creeks that used to permeate the ami River is Florida’s fifth-largest port and receives both mangrove forests (Browder et al. 2005). In contrast to cruise and cargo ships (FDEP 2013). The northern portion historic sheetflow, the constructed canals localized and of Biscayne Bay has been the most severely impacted, with concentrated freshwater runoff to the bay, leading to six filled causeways, a major seaport facility, and highly ur- drastic seasonal salinity fluctuations due to freshwater banized development. South of greater Miami, urban de- depletion or inundation. velopment is replaced by agriculture. Water quality greatly Widespread mosquito ditching and reduced fresh- improved in the bay in the 1970s with the development of water input led to extensive saltwater intrusion in the more wastewater treatment plants and the elimination of wetlands surrounding Biscayne Bay. By the 1940s and direct sewage discharge into the bay, but it still receives 1950s, mangroves and other salt-tolerant vegetation had significant amounts of nutrients and other pollutants in expanded inland and colonized along the ditches (Ruiz stormwater runoff (Browder et al. 2005, FDEP 2013). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 117

Figure 10.1. Mangrove and salt marsh coverage in the Biscayne Bay area. Data source: SFWMD 2004–2005 land use/land cover data, based upon FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009a). 118 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 10.2. Aerial image of the white zone adjacent to Card Sound. The cooling canals of the Turkey Point Power Plant are visible in the upper portion of the image. Image credit: Google Earth.

The Turkey Point Power Plant in southern Biscayne Bay reduced in extent by the expansion of mangroves, tend to (Figure 10.1), which includes twin nuclear power stations be dominated by Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush) and three fossil-fuel power stations, was constructed and or Distichlis spicata (salt grass) (Ruiz 2007). began operation in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The warm-water effluent was found to have a detrimental im- Southeast Saline Everglades “white zone” pact on Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass) and on many of The region landward of Card Sound and Barnes Sound the fish and benthic organisms (Zieman and Wood 1975). (Figure 10.1) is part of the area that has been named the Consequently, 168 miles (270 km) of cooling canals were Southeast Saline Everglades (Egler 1952, Ross et al. 2000). built through 6,800 acres (2,750 ha) of mangroves adjacent From an aerial view, this region of sparse vegetation ap- to the power plant (FDEP 2013). These canals are now a pears white due to the highly reflective nature of the marl productive nursery ground for Crocodylus acutus (the substrate (Figure 10.2) and so has been dubbed the white American crocodile), which is listed as threatened under zone (Ross et al. 2000, Browder et al. 2005, Briceño et the federal Endangered Species Act (FDEP 2013). al. 2011). The vegetation in this region is composed of Mangroves dominate coastal wetland vegetation along mangrove shrubs along the coastline, which transition to Biscayne Bay. Mangrove canopy height is greatest along the sparse mangrove–graminoid mixtures of predominantly bay’s western shoreline and decreases further inland (Ruiz R. mangle and Eleocharis cellulosa (Gulf Coast spiker- 2007). Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove) generally dom- ush) (Ross et al. 2000). The vegetation transitions to Cla- inates along the coast and in many of the inland forests. dium jamaicense (sawgrass) freshwater wetlands further Avicennia germinans (black mangrove), Laguncularia rac- inland. Productivity in this coastal ecosystem is restricted emosa (white mangrove), and the closely associated Con- by a combination of reduced seasonal freshwater flows, ocarpus erectus (buttonwood) become more prominent phosphorus limitation, and soil salinity. The vegetation in further inland (Smith et al. 1994, Ruiz 2007). Salt marshes, the white zone is generally not dense enough to be classi- Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 119 fied as mangrove forest under most land cover classifica- water sources that are already under stress due to water tion systems. The reduction in surface sheet water flow demand and management (Browder et al. 2005). has led to the landward expansion of the white zone by • Altered hydrology: As previously mentioned, the ca- about 0.9 mi (1.5 km) from the 1940s to the 1990s (Ross nalization and reduction in sheet flow led to freshwater et al. 2000). depletion in many wetlands along the bay. This alteration has resulted in shifts from freshwater vegetation Biscayne Bay management to salt-tolerant vegetation. Increasing saltwater intrusion and the high salinity of water in the coastal wet- Managed regions in the bay include Biscayne Bay lands decreases their productivity and ecosystem utility Aquatic Preserve (established in 1974), Biscayne Bay-Cape (Gaiser and Ross 2003, SFNRC 2006). Florida to Monroe County Line Aquatic Preserve (established in 1975), and Biscayne National Park (established in • Urban development: Biscayne Bay is located in heavily 1980) (FDEP 2013). Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve bound- populated Miami-Dade County. With this large human aries are restricted to submerged lands in the bay itself; population comes continued development, loss and frag- therefore most of the mapping and monitoring conduct- mentation of natural habitats, and increased recreational ed by the preserve focuses on parameters such as seagrass use of the bay (Briceño et al. 2011). While sewage man- extent and water quality (FDEP 2013). Several parks and agement has improved, pollution in stormwater runoff preserves also line the shoreline of the bay, and all regions continues to contribute excess nutrients, herbicides, pes- of the bay are used extensively for recreation. More than ticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons to the 500,000 people visit every year, and 54% of local residents bay (CERP 2010, Briceño et al. 2011, FDEP 2013). report using the bay annually (CERP 2010, FDEP 2013). • Hurricanes and tropical storms: The location of In an effort to restore the wetlands in this region to a Biscayne Bay makes it highly vulnerable to the power- more natural state, the Comprehensive Everglades Resto- ful winds and storm surge of hurricanes and tropical ration Plan (CERP) includes a Biscayne Bay coastal wet- storms. Extensive damage occurred to mangrove forests land project that aims to redirect freshwater from canals after Hurricane Donna in 1960 and Hurricane Andrew onto coastal wetlands adjacent to the bay (CERP 2010, in 1992. After Andrew passed over South Florida, there CERP 2012). The three regions of focus for this restoration was catastrophic damage to the tall (10–15 m) R. man- program are the Deering Estate, Cutler wetlands, and the gle and A. germinans trees along the coast (Smith et al. L-31 East Flow-way wetlands near Military Canal. This 1994). By comparison, the smaller R. mangle trees locat- surface flow of freshwater will help restore the coastal ed farther inland from the tall coastal trees suffered little wetlands by re-establishing lower salinities, although in- damage. Mangroves on the barrier islands surrounding vasive vegetation that has taken hold in some parts of this Biscayne Bay were also damaged by the intense storm region may need to be addressed as well (Browder et al. surge from the hurricane (Smith et al. 1994). 2005, Briceño et al. 2011, FDEP 2013). CERP efforts to • increase surface freshwater flow may help reduce the ex- Invasive species: Like much of Florida, invasive vegeta- tent of the white zone. Miami-Dade County restoration tion such as Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper) efforts in the area include habitat enhancement of spoil and Casuarina spp. (Australian pines) compete with na- islands, shoreline stabilization, removal of invasive veg- tive species along Biscayne Bay, particularly in regions etation, native vegetation planting, and the creation of recovering from disturbances (FDEP 2013). flushing channels (Milano 2000, FDEP 2013). Mapping and monitoring efforts Threats to coastal wetlands Water management district mapping • Climate change and sea-level rise: Sea-level rise is a threat to coastal ecosystems and estuaries due to ero- The South Florida Water Management District (SFW- sion, increased salinity, and increased landward extent MD) conducts fairly regular land use/land cover (LULC) of tidal range, which encourages coastal vegetation to surveys. Land cover classifications are based upon SFW- migrate further inland (CERP 2010). Coastal wetland MD modifications to the Florida Land Use and Cover extent will be reduced in regions where extensive agri- Classification System (FLUCCS) (FDOT 1999,SFWMD culture and urban development have replaced natural 2009b). Figure 10.1 presents data from 2004–2005 surveys. buffer zones. Additionally, saline intrusion into aquifers The most recent SFWMD LULC data available for the re- further diminishes freshwater availability from ground- gion were compiled in 2008–2009, but they are not shown 120 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors here due to erroneously high acreages attributed to salt marshes in those years (see Ruiz et al. 2008 for a land use cover comparison). Minimum mapping units were 5 acres (2 ha) for uplands and 2 acres (0.8 ha) for wetlands. Maps were made by interpreting aerial photography and updating 1999 vector data (SFWMD 2009a).

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan monitoring Monitoring will be conducted as part of the CERP Biscayne Bay coastal wetland project once the construction phase is complete (CERP 2010, CERP 2012). Responsibility for monitoring of hydrology, ecology, water quality, and endangered species will be shared by the SFWMD and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Local vegetation mapping and monitoring Several detailed mapping studies have been conducted in the coastal wetlands along Biscayne Bay. Ruiz and Ross (2004) did an inventory of mosquito and drainage ditches along the bay and compiled management and restoration Figure 10.3. Vegetation between Princeton and Mowry canals, as recommendations. Ruiz et al. (2002), mapped by Ross and Ruiz (2003). Ross and Ruiz (2003), and Ruiz (2007) used vegetation data from multiple transects to create • Due to continued population growth and urban ex- species-specific vegetation maps of the western shore of pansion, additional land acquisitions are necessary in Biscayne Bay between the Princeton and Mowry canals order to make large-scale restoration and water redis- (see Figure 10.3). Ruiz et al. (2008) created a high-resolu- tribution plans feasible (Briceño et al. 2011). Unde- tion vegetation map of Biscayne National Park that in- veloped privately owned lands are rare in South Flor- cluded portions of the western shore of the bay between ida and are likely to be developed in the near future the Deering Estate and Turkey Point. (CERP 2010). • The South Florida Natural Resources Center outlined Recommendations for protection, salinity targets optimal for the coastal mangrove zone management, and monitoring along Biscayne Bay (SFNRC 2006). These targets include a maximum salinity of 30, which will require • Mosquito and drainage ditches need to be removed in close monitoring during the dry season, and oligoha- order to improve hydrologic connectivity and fresh- line conditions of 0–5 in the coastal mangrove zone water retention, and simplify management of the during the summer rainy season. wetlands. Ditch removal needs to be performed with caution, however, as it may cause mortality in the man- • Sewage systems in the Miami area need to be upgrad- groves that have colonized the mosquito ditches and ed, and stormwater treatment needs to address the is- the disturbance may facilitate establishment of invasive sues of pollutants, nutrients, and sediment in runoff vegetation (Ruiz and Ross 2004). (FDEP 2013). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 121

• An independent review of the CERP Biscayne Bay coastal wetland phase 1: Final integrated project Coastal Wetlands Project by the Battelle Memorial implementation report and environmental impact Institute cited the need for more specific means of ad- statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South dressing sea-level rise and water availability in the re- Florida Water Management District. pbadupws.nrc. gion (BMI 2009). The review also questions whether gov/docs/ML1227/ML12270A058.pdf, accessed June the monitoring program is sufficient to detect ecosys- 2015. tem changes and stresses. Egler FE. 1952. Southeast saline Everglades vegetation, • Consistent regional mapping and monitoring of coast- Florida, and its management. Vegetation 3:213–265. al land cover and vegetation are needed to monitor im- Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2013. pacts of changing climate and hydrology (Briceño et al. Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserves management plan. 2011). For instance, SFWMD LULC data showed a 10- Florida Department of Environmental Protection fold increase in the area of salt marsh around Biscayne Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, Tallahassee. Bay from 2004–2005 to 2008–2009. This difference re- publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/cama/plans/aquatic/ flects changes in mapping methodology rather than an Biscayne_Bay_Aquatic_Preserves_Management_ actual increase in salt marsh extent. Plan_2012.pdf, accessed June 2015. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida land use, cover and forms classification Works cited system, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, Ball MC. 1980. Patterns of secondary succession in Thematic Mapping Section. www.dot.state. a mangrove forest of southern Florida. Oecologia fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/ 44:226–235. fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed June 2015. Battelle Memorial Institute. 2009. Final independent Gaiser EE, Ross MS. 2003. Water flow through coastal external peer review for the Biscayne Bay coastal Everglades. Report to Everglades National Park CESI wetlands project implementation report. Prepared Contract 1443CA5280-01-019. Florida International for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Batelle University Southeast Environmental Research Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. www.usace. Center, Miami. www2.fiu.edu/~serp1/projects/ army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/Project%20 WaterflowThroughCoastalWetlands.pdf, accessed Planning/biscaynebay.pdf, accessed June 2015. June 2015. Briceño HO, Boyer JN, Harlem P. 2011. Ecological Milano GR. 2000. Island restoration and enhancement impacts on Biscayne Bay and Biscayne National in Biscayne Bay, Florida. Pp. 1–17 in Cannizarro PJ Park from proposed south Miami-Dade County (ed.). Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on development, and derivation of numeric nutrient Ecosystem Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough criteria for South Florida estuaries and coastal Community College, Tampa. www.miamidade.gov/ waters. Florida International University Southeast environment/library/reports/island-restoration.pdf, Environmental Research Center, Miami. serc.fiu.edu/ accessed June 2015. wqmnetwork/BNP/Final%20Report%20BNP.pdf, Ross M, Meeder JF, Sah JP, Ruiz PL, Telesnicki GJ. 2000. accessed June 2015. The Southeast Saline Everglades revisited: 50 years Browder JA, Alleman R, Markely S, Ortner P, Pitts PA. of coastal vegetation change. Journal of Vegetation 2005. Biscayne Bay conceptual ecological model. Science 11:101–112. Wetlands 25:854–869. Ross MS, Ruiz PL. 2003. Vegetation. Pp. 8–16 in Gaiser Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 2010. EE, Ross MS (eds). Water flow through coastal Central and southern Florida project comprehensive wetlands. Report to Everglades National Park CESI everglades restoration plan Biscayne Bay coastal Contract 1443CA5280-01-019. Florida International wetlands phase 1: Draft integrated project University Southeast Environmental Research implementation report and environmental impact Center, Miami. www2.fiu.edu/~serp1/projects/ statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville WaterflowThroughCoastalWetlands.pdf, accessed District and South Florida Water Management June 2015. District. Ruiz PL, Ross MS, Walters J, Hwang B, Gaiser E. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 2012. 2002. Vegetation of coastal wetlands in Biscayne Central and southern Florida project comprehensive National Park: blocks 6–8 (L-31E wetland and Everglades restoration plan: Biscayne Bay flow monitoring). Florida International University 122 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Southeast Environmental Research Center Research General references and Reports Paper 78, Miami. digitalcommons.fiu.edu/ additional regional information cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=sercrp, accessed June 2015. Miami-Dade County Natural Areas Management Ruiz PL, Ross MS. 2004. Hydrologic restoration of Plan 2004. Miami-Dade County natural areas the Biscayne Bay coastal wetlands: mosquito and management working group. Department of drainage ditch inventory and recommendations. Environmental Resources Management (DERM) Florida International University Southeast Environ Technical Report Number 2004–1. www.miamidade. mental Research Center, Miami. www2.fiu. gov/environment/library/reports/natural-areas-mgmt- edu/~serp1/projects/l31e/mdr.pdf, accessed June 2015. plan.pdf, accessed June 2015. Ruiz PL. 2007. A GIS analysis of the Biscayne Bay Nuttle WK, Fletcher PJ (eds.). 2013. Integrated coastal wetlands vegetation between the Mowry and conceptual ecosystem model development for the Princeton Canals. Florida International University, Southeast Florida coastal marine ecosystem. NOAA Miami. Technical Memorandum, OAR-AOML-103 and Ruiz PL, Houle PA, Ross MS. 2008. The 2008 terrestrial NOS-NCCOS-163. Miami. www.aoml.noaa.gov/ vegetation of Biscayne National Park, FL, USA general/lib/TM/TM_OAR_AOML_103.pdf, accessed derived from aerial photography, NDVI, and June 2015. LiDAR. Florida International University Southeast Environmental Research Center Research Report 86, Biscayne National Park: www.nps.gov/bisc/index.htm Miami. digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent. Biscayne Aquatic Preserves: cgi?article=1092&context=sercrp, accessed June www.dep.state.fl.us/COASTAL/sites/biscayne/ 2015. Smith TJ III, Robblee MB, Wanless HR, Doyle TW. South Florida Multi-species recovery plan: 1994. Mangroves, hurricanes, and lightning strikes: www.fws.gov/verobeach/listedspeciesMSRP.html assessment of Hurricane Andrew suggests an South Florida Water Management District: interaction across two differing scales of disturbance. www.sfwmd.gov/ BioScience 44:256–262. South Florida Natural Resources Center. 2006. CERP Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands: Ecological targets for western Biscayne National www.evergladesrestoration.gov/content/bbrrct/ Park. National Park Service Department of the minutes/2015_meetings/071515/BBCW_Project_ Interior and South Florida Natural Resources Center, Status.pdf Everglades National Park. SFNRC Technical Series 2006:2. www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/upload/ BISCEcolTargetsHiResSecure.pdf, accessed June Regional contacts 2015. Sharon Ewe, Florida Coastal Everglades Long Term South Florida Water Management District. 2009a. Ecological Research, [email protected] SFWMD GIS data catalogue. apps.sfwmd.gov/ gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp, accessed June Pablo L. Ruiz, National Park Service, South Florida/Ca- 2015. ribbean Network, [email protected] South Florida Water Management District. 2009b. 2009 SFWMD photointerpretation key. my.sfwmd.gov/ portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_ pdf/2009_pi-key.pdf, accessed June 2015. U.S. Census. 2015. United States census bureau state & county quick facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts/, accessed March 2017. Zieman JC, Wood EJ. 1975. Effects of thermal pollution on tropical-type estuaries, with emphasis on Biscayne Bay, Florida. Pp. 75–98 in Johannes RE, Wood EJF (eds.). Tropical Marine Pollution. Elsevier Oceanography Series, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 123

Chapter 11 Palm Beach and Broward Counties

Eric Anderson, Palm Beach County Phyllis Klarmann, Palm Beach County Marion Hedgepeth, South Florida Water Management District Linda Sunderland, Broward County Christina Powell, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the Region CERP 2005, FDEP 2006).The construction of the In- tracoastal Waterway in 1912 and the dredging of inlets Palm Beach and Broward counties (Figures 11.1 and through the barrier islands altered hydrology and led to 11.2) are Florida’s second and third most populous coun- a brackish nearshore environment, killing freshwater spe- ties, respectively, behind Miami-Dade County. The esti- cies (FDEP 2006). The hydrology of the region was sig- mated 2015 population between the two counties exceeded nificantly altered when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3.3 million (U.S. Census 2015). While dense urban devel- constructed drainage canals connecting Lake Okeechobee opment borders the limestone Atlantic Coastal Ridge and to the Atlantic Ocean as part of the Central and Southern the sandy beaches along the coast, the western portions Florida Project in the 1950s and 1960s. Mosquito ditches of the counties are dominated by wildlife management and impoundments also altered local hydrology, although and water conservation areas. Palm Beach County also in many regions these ditches have since been filled and includes the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National more natural topography and hydrology has been re- Wildlife Refuge and a portion of the Everglades Agricul- stored (FDEP 2012, LWLI 2013). tural Area. This region receives the highest amount of Palm Beach and Broward counties have lost the majori- rainfall in Florida, averaging more than 4.9 ft (150 cm) ty of their coastal wetlands to extensive urban development per year (USFWS 1999a, FDEP 2012). (Figures 11.1 and 11.2). Approximately 87% of mangroves The underlying Biscayne Aquifer, which extends were removed between 1940 and 1975 due to widespread from Monroe County to southern Palm Beach County, construction during this period (Harris et al. 1983). South supplies water for the Florida Keys and for Broward and Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) mapping Miami-Dade counties (Fish and Stewart 1991, USFWS shows an increase in mangrove extent in recent decades 1999a). The aquifer reaches a thickness of over 200 ft (61 (Figure 11.3, Table 11.1). The Palm Beach County De- m) near the coast and progressively thins toward the center partment of Environmental Resources Management (PB- of the state (Fish and Stewart 1991, FDEP 2006). Saltwater CERM) restoration efforts have expanded mangrove hab- intrusion into groundwater, particularly during periods of itat in Palm Beach County by removing exotic vegetation little rainfall, is increasingly problematic due to urban and and planting native species (Table 11.2). At the same time, agricultural demand for freshwater, drastically altered sur- the extent of remaining salt marsh has declined slightly face flow, and sea-level rise (FDEP 2006, SFWMD 2013). (Figure 11.3). The decline in salt marsh extent is linked to Prior to human development much of the mainland loss of habitat and mangrove encroachment due to mild coastal region was dominated by Cladium jamaicense winters (Saintilan et al. 2014). When mangrove growth is (sawgrass) and other freshwater plants (USFWS 1999b, not restricted by cold temperatures, mangroves can shade 124 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 11.1. Salt marsh and mangrove extent in Palm Beach County. Data source: SFWMD 2008–2009 land use/ land cover data, based upon FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009a). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 125

Figure 11.2. Salt marsh and mangrove extent in Broward County. Data source: SFWMD 2008–2009 land use/land cover data, based upon FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009a). 126 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

and eventually replace salt marsh vegetation (Stevens et al. 2006). Studies of the salt marsh species Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) also suggest that nutrient enrichment in developed coastal systems may be a driver for salt marsh loss (Deegan et al. 2012), although coastal wetland responses to eutrophication are widely variable (Kirwan and Megonigal 2013).

Loxahatchee River The Loxahatchee River crosses through Martin and Palm Beach counties before it reaches the Atlantic Ocean Figure 11.3. Acreages of mangrove swamp and salt at the Jupiter Inlet (the downstream portion of the riv- marsh in Palm Beach and Broward counties Data er is visible in Figure 11.1). The Northwest Fork of the source: SFWMD 2009a. Loxahatchee River (Figure 11.4) is composed of subtropical cypress swamp, mesic and hydric hammocks, and mixed hardwood forest. In 1985, it was designated Florida’s first National Wild and Scenic River (SFWMD Table 11.1. Acreages of mangrove swamp (FLUCCS 2006). This swamp contains Taxodium distichum (bald 6120) and salt marsh (FLUCCS 6420) in Palm Beach cypress) trees that are at least 300 years old and is one of and Broward counties. Data source: SFWMD 2009a. the last remaining bald cypress swamps in Southeast Flor- ida. The Loxahatchee River is also Southeast Florida’s Year Mangrove Salt marsh last free-flowing river system (SFWMD 2006). Addition- 1995 1612 55 ally, the tidal floodplains and estuary with its seagrasses, 1999 1947 56 mangroves, and oyster beds are valuable ecological re- 2004–2005 2015 28 sources in the Loxahatchee River watershed. Mangroves 2008–2009 2042 21 are found fringing natural shorelines of the Loxahatchee River estuary, occasionally expanding landward as a full mangrove forest (SFWMD 2006). Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove) and Laguncularia racemosa (white man- Table 11.2. Mangrove and cordgrass acreage in the grove) are dominant, while Avicennia germinans (black Lake Worth Lagoon (LWL) and Intracoastal Waterway mangrove) is found along the Intracoastal Waterway. (ICW) of Palm Beach County (PBC). Data source: PBC Historically, the Jupiter Inlet opened and closed nat- 2008. No cordgrass data available in 1985 and 2001. urally due to storms and river flow. Altered hydrology as a result of the construction of the Intracoastal Waterway Habitat Region 1985 2001 2007 and the Lake Worth Inlet caused it to frequently remain Mangrove North ICW 231 243 266 closed. In 1947, Jupiter Inlet was permanently opened North LWL 119 134 153 through dredging operations and the construction of Central LWL 52 56 58 jetties and sand traps (SFWMD 2006). The Loxahatchee South LWL 76 73 73 River watershed has been permanently altered by the stabilization of the Jupiter Inlet, which heightens the effects South ICW 152 147 162 of tidal amplitude and saltwater intrusion. The construc- Total PBC 631 654 711 tion and operation of drainage canal systems also alters Cordgrass North ICW 0.00 the natural pattern of freshwater flow and inundation of (Spartina North LWL 0.00 the floodplain. The increased surface water, soil salinity, spp.) and tidal inundation are major concerns for the survival Central LWL 1.35 of the remaining floodplain communities. South LWL 0.16 South ICW 0.00 Lake Worth Lagoon Total PBC 1.51 Lake Worth Lagoon (LWL) is a 22-mi-long (35 km), narrow estuary that extends along Palm Beach County Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 127

Figure 11.4. 1995 Floodplain vegetation along the upper Loxahatchee River (Martin County). Data source: Hedgepeth and Roberts 2009.

(Figure 11.1, detailed extent in Figure 11.5). Historical- mately 3.17 acres (1.28 ha) of salt marsh habitat (Figure ly Lake Worth was a freshwater lake that received sheet 11.5). These patches of S. alterniflorasalt marsh were cre- flows of fresh surface water from the Everglades, but the ated as part of PBCERM restoration projects and are of- construction of artificial inlets in the early 1900s caused the ten planted alongside or mixed with mangrove seedlings. water to become brackish (USFWS 1999b, CERP 2005). Although S. alterniflora tends to be outcompeted by man- More than 81% of the lagoon’s shoreline is lined by urban groves over time, it is an important pioneer species that development (PBCERM 2008), but mangroves do occu- will increase the chances for success of emergent vegeta- py some shorelines of the northern lagoon, islands, and a tion (Lewis and Dunstan 1975, Crewz and Lewis 1991). few patchy regions around the southern end of the lagoon The North Palm Beach County portion of the Com- (Figure 11.5, USFWS 1999b). LWL receives considerable prehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), now freshwater input from the Earman River, West Palm Beach called the CERP Loxahatchee River Watershed Resto- Canal, and Boynton Canal (C-17, C-51, and C-16 canals, ration Project, seeks to reduce freshwater flow to LWL respectively) (Figure 11.1, SFWMD 2013). This freshwater by diverting it to the Loxahatchee Slough and Grassy input decreases salinity in LWL and increases sedimenta- Waters Preserve. The project aims to moderate freshwa- tion. SFWMD regulates freshwater discharges in attempts ter flow and improve hydroperiods to the region. Other to limit high-volume outflows and maintain estuarine sa- CERP projects in this region included the construction linities above 15 (SFWMD 2013). of sediment traps along the West Palm Beach Canal and Based upon 2007 habitat mapping (Table 11.2, PBC the addition of sand near Ibis Isle in LWL to provide suf- 2008) and additional mapping of PBCERM restoration ficient elevation for mangrove and salt marsh planting projects between 2007 and 2012, the LWL has approxi- (SFWMD 2013). 128 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors Palm Beach County: Lake Worth Lagoon Mangrove Habitat (2013)

North LWL Central LWL South LWL North ICW

Mangrove Habitat (295 acres) Salt Marsh (3.17 acres)

0 0.5 1 2 Miles ! South ICW

Prepared by Palm Beach County Figure 11.5. Emergent saltwater vegetation surrounding Lake Worth Lagoon, 2013. Data source: LWLI 2013.

Broward County West Lake Park urban development, primarily from coastal construction between 1940 and 1970 (Harris et al. 1983). The coastal Mangroves are present in a few parks and barrier is- wetlands that remain are found primarily on protected lands along the coast of Broward County, such as John U. public lands and so are less susceptible to the direct threat Lloyd Beach State Park and Hugh Taylor Birch State Park of development, though indirect impacts (discussed be- (Figure 11.2). The largest mangrove habitat in the county low) of a large human population impact these wetlands. is found at Broward County West Lake Park in Hollywood (USFWS 1999b). In the 1920s, the region surrounding the • Hydrologic alterations: The region has already under- park was dredged and filled to prepare for development gone a major shift from freshwater to estuarine wet- (MacAdam et al. 1998). The land was never developed and lands due to the dredging of inlets through the barrier was later purchased for conservation in 1980. From 1985 islands and the rerouting of surface water. While ex- to 1996, a restoration effort removed exotic vegetation and tending the inland range of the tides did increase the decreased land elevation to encourage natural recruitment extent of estuarine wetlands in the area, salinity is high- of mangroves (MacAdam et al. 1998). The region is now a ly variable. Channelization led to the concentration of 1,400-acre (566 ha) coastal wetland and mangrove preserve runoff while other regions were starved of freshwater, that includes two salt marshes dominated by Borrichia ar- both of which hinder optimal salinity for estuarine wet- borescens (seaside tansy) and B. frutescens (sea oxeye dai- lands (FDEP 2012, LWLI 2013). More localized hydro- sy) (USFWS 1999b). logic issues include stagnant water caused by remnant mosquito ditches, which are suboptimal for coastal wetlands because they lack complete tidal flushing Threats to coastal wetlands (FDEP 2006, LWLI 2013). • Coastal development: Palm Beach and Broward coun- • Climate change and sea-level rise: Extensive urban de- ties have lost the vast majority of their coastal wetlands to velopment along the shoreline restricts the extent of buf- Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 129 Palm Beach County: North & South County/ICW Mangrove Habitat (2007)

North PBC/ICW South PBC/ICW

LWL

Mangrove Habitat *North & South PBC/ICW, 415 acres LWL 0 0.5 1 2 0 10.5 Miles ! Miles

Figure 11.6. Detail of 2007 mangrove extent along the Intracoastal WaterwayPrepared of by the Palm Beach County northern and southern portion of Palm Beach County. Data Source: PBC 2008.

fer zones and hinders landward migration. Sea-level rise potential for hazardous spills due to high boat traffic threatens coastal habitats in this region as mangroves and shipping (FDEP 2012). fringing seawalls or other hardened shorelines will likely • Invasive vegetation: Like much of coastal Florida, be lost due to inundation. This region is also vulnera- invasive vegetation such as Melaleuca quinquenervia ble to inundation due to storm surge from hurricanes, (melaleuca), Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper) which are exacerbated by higher sea levels (LWLI 2013). and Casuarina spp. (Australian pines) compete with na- • Water quality and pollution: Runoff from the dense tive vegetation for space and freshwater (FDEP 2012). urban development in this region is detrimental to • Erosion: Much of the mangrove habitat lines the Intra- local water quality. Pollutants in freshwater runoff, coastal Waterway; bank erosion from prop wash and including fertilizers and pesticides, often flow directly wake from heavy boat traffic threatens these mangroves into coastal wetlands and lagoons. There is also the (FDEP 2012). 130 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 11.7. 2012 Shoreline characteristics along Lake Worth Lagoon. Data source: LWLI 2013.

Mapping and monitoring efforts ing county-based aerial photography updating 2004–2005 vector data (SFWMD 2009a). Water management district mapping SFWMD conducts fairly regular surveys of land use Palm Beach County Habitat Mapping and land cover (LULC). Salt marsh and mangrove extent In 2007, the Palm Beach County Habitat Mapping is available for the LULC years 1995, 1999, 2004–2005, and Project used aerial photography to identify the extent 2008–2009 (see Table 11.1). Land cover classifications for of seagrass, mangrove, salt marsh, and oyster habitat in 2008–2009 were based on a SFWMD-modified FLUCCS LWL and the Intracoastal Waterway in the northern and classification system (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009b). Min- southern portions the county (PBC 2008). Aerotriangu- imum mapping units were 5 acres (2 ha) for uplands and 2 lation, digital orthophotography, field work, photoint- acres (0.8 ha) for wetlands. Maps were made by interpret- erpretation, and trend analyses were used to map these Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 131 coastal resources. Mangrove extent from this project for conditions necessary for the long-term health of these the Intracoastal Waterway in the northern and southern vegetative communities are maintained. SFWMD has portions of Palm Beach County is shown in Figure 11.6; ongoing monitoring for freshwater flow, water quality, shoreline characteristics of LWL are shown in Figure 11.7. vegetation, seagrasses, and various animals in the North This effort updated older maps from 1985 and 2001–2003 Fork of the St. Lucie River and the Loxahatchee River (PBC 2004). There has not been an update since 2007, Floodplain and Watershed (SFWMD 2006). The Resto- although an extensive seagrass mapping effort was com- ration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee pleted in 2013 for LWL, Lake Boca, and Jupiter Sound. A River (SFWMD 2006) chronicles these problems and pro- more recent mangrove assessment was completed as part vides ecological target species, performance measures, of the Lake Worth Lagoon Management Plan in 2012 and monitoring requirements needed to track the success (Figure 11.5); the extent of mangroves along the LWL was of restoration and guide future adaptive management and found to have increased 8% from 1985 to 2012 (LWLI operational practices. 2013). The increase in acreage of mangroves in LWL from 2007 to 2013 was determined by mapping mangroves at Recommendations for protection, PBCERM restoration sites; this calculation was added to total acreage (LWLI 2013). management, and monitoring • Because the construction of inlets and the resulting increase in tidal influence has caused expansion of man- Loxahatchee River floodplain vegetation study groves into regions previously occupied by freshwater In 2003, SFWMD and the Florida Park Service estab- vegetation, management practices will vary depending lished four new vegetative belt transects and studied six on whether the overall objective is to protect existing transects from previous studies for a total of 138 vegeta- coastal wetlands (LWLI 2013) or remaining freshwater tive plots in the Loxahatchee River floodplain (Hedgepeth vegetation (SFWMD 2006). and Roberts 2009, Kaplan et al. 2010). These data were • Restore connectivity between isolated habitats and collected in preparation for establishing the minimum develop a monitoring program to assess impacts of flow and levels requirements for the Northwest Fork of sea-level rise on coastal ecosystems. Install living shore- the Loxahatchee River. Since then, canopy has been ex- lines such as mangroves or other native vegetation in amined every six years and shrub and groundcover every place of bulkheads or other artificial shorelines. Land- three years. ward migration of mangroves and salt marshes should The study focused on the stability of floodplain plant be facilitated with buffer zones adjacent to coastal wet- communities. Due to inadequate hydroperiods, these lands habitats (SFRCC 2012). Further recommended re- floodplain plants were at risk of displacement by upland sponses to climate change are outlined in the Southeast and transitional communities in the inland regions. In the Florida Regional Climate Change report (SFRCC 2012). tidal reaches, reduction in freshwater flow led to increased salinity, prompting the establishment of salt-tolerant spe- • Several regions, including parts of John U. Lloyd Beach cies such as mangroves (Hedgepeth and Roberts 2009, Ka- State Park and Lantana Nature Preserve, were once plan et al. 2010). The study concluded that T. distichum ditched in an attempt to curb mosquito population should be the primary species of concern for restoration growth (FDEP 2012, LWLI 2013). Although many and enhancement in this riverine swamp, while Acer ru- ditches were filled in, water stagnates in remaining brum (red maple) and Carya aquatica (water hickory) ditches and continued filling and restoration are recom- should be the primary species of concern for bottomland mended (FDEP 2012, LWLI 2013). Mangroves in Hugh hardwood communities and Sabal palmetto (cabbage Taylor Birch State Park would also benefit from in- palm) for hydric hammock (SFWMD 2006, Hedgepeth creased circulation and tidal flushing, and spoil regions and Roberts 2009). Restoration of the Loxahatchee River have been recommended for restoration to mangrove focuses on reducing salinities to less than 2 in the upper forest (FDEP 2006). tidal reaches and improving hydroperiods on the riverine • Invasive vegetation continues to be a major threat to floodplain, which should in turn improve habitat quality Florida wetlands. Efforts should be made to control the for freshwater seed production, germination, and even- introduction of exotic species and to educate landown- tually reforestation throughout the river system. Contin- ers about planting native species. Restoration efforts ued vegetation, surface water, and soil monitoring of the should continue to remove invasive vegetation that en- floodplain will be necessary to ensure that the hydrologic croaches on salt marshes and mangroves. 132 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

• Goals in the Lake Worth Lagoon Management Plan in- Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2012. clude reducing sediment load, nutrient input, and con- John U. Lloyd Beach State Park unit management taminant input into the lagoon. The Action Plan also plan. Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/ specifically aims to restore, create, and protect man- planning/parkplans/JohnULloydBeachStatePark.pdf, grove habitats (LWLI 2013). This result will be achieved accessed June 2015. through the education of landowners, installation of Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. living shorelines, and collaboration with local partners Florida land use, cover and forms classification and governmental agencies to complete habitat resto- system, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, ration projects. Thematic Mapping Section. www.dot.state. • Goals in the John D. MacArthur Beach State Park fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/ Management Plan include the continued exotic vegeta- fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed June 2015. tion removal, restoration of the beach dune community, Harris B, Haddad KD, Steindinger RA, Huff JA. 1983. updating plant and animal inventories, and improved Assessment of fisheries habitat: Charlotte Harbor mapping, monitoring, and management of designated and Lake Worth. Florida Department of Natural species (FDEP 2005). Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida. www.gpo.gov/ fdsys/pkg/CZIC-sh327-7-f6-a77-1983/html/CZIC- sh327-7-f6-a77-1983.htm, accessed June 2015. Hedgepeth M, Roberts R. 2009. Riverine and tidal Works cited floodplain vegetation of the Loxahatchee River Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 2005. and its major tributaries. South Florida Water Project management plan: North Palm Beach Management District, Coastal Ecosystems Division County—part 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental and South Florida Water Management District. Protection, Florida Park Service. sfwmd.gov/portal/ 141.232.10.32/pm/pmp/pmp_docs/pmp_17_npbc/ page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/lox_ june_2005_pmp_17_npbc_main.pdf, accessed June river_floodplain_veg_2009.pdf, accessed June 2015. 2015. Kaplan D, Muñoz-Carpena R, Wan Y, Hedgepeth M, Crewz DW, Lewis RR. 1991. An evaluation of Zheng F, Roberts R, Rossmanith R. 2010. Linking historical attempts to establish emergent vegetation river, floodplain, and vadose zone hydrology to in marine wetlands in Florida. Florida Sea Grant improve restoration of a coastal river affected by Technical Paper TP – 60. Florida Sea Grant College. saltwater intrusion. Journal of Environmental University of Florida, Gainesville. ufdc.ufl.edu/ Quality 38:1570–1584. UF00076610/00001/1j, accessed June 2015. Kirwan ML, Megonigal JP. 2013. Tidal wetland stability Deegan LA, Johnson DS, Warren RS, Peterson BJ, in the face of human impacts and sea level rise. Fleeger JW, Fagherazzi S, Wollheim WM. 2012. Nature 504:53–60. Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. Lake Worth Lagoon Initiative. 2013. Lake Worth Nature 490:388–392. Lagoon management plan. www.pbcgov.org/erm/ Fish JE, Stewart M. 1991. Hydrogeology of the surficial lwlipdfs/2013ManagementPlan/2013LWLmanage- aquifer system, Dade County, Florida. U.S. Geological mentplanFINAL.pdf, accessed January 2015. Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 90- Lewis RR, Dunstan FM. 1975. The possible role of 4108, Tallahassee. sofia.usgs.gov/publications/wri/90- Spartina alterniflora in establishment of mangroves in 4108/wri904108.pdf, accessed June 2015. Florida. Pp. 82–100 in Proceedings for Second Annual Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Conference on the Restoration of Coastal Vegetation John D. MacArthur Beach State Park unit manage in Florida May 17, 1975. Hillsborough Community ment plan. Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/ College, Tampa. planning/parkplans/JohnDMacArthurBeachStatePark. MacAdam G, Lewis III RR, Bay MB. 1998. Restoring pdf, accessed June 2015. West Lake: fish, shorebird habitat, tidal pools and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. mangroves restored in a 1,500 acre mangrove preserve Hugh Taylor Birch State Park unit management plan. within densely populated Broward County, Florida: Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/ expanded abstract. Pp. 36–37 in Cannizzaro PJ (ed). parkplans/HughTaylorBirchStatePark.pdf, accessed Proceedings of the Twenty Fourth Annual Conference June 2015. on Ecosystems Restoration and Creation: May 1997. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 133

images.library.wisc.edu/EcoNatRes/EFacs/Wetlands/ U.S. Census. 2015. United States Census Bureau state Wetlands24/reference/econatres.wetlands24. & county quick facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts/, gmacadam.pdf, accessed June 2015. accessed March 2017. Palm Beach County. 2004. Palm Beach County mangrove U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. The South Florida and seagrass mapping project. Prepared by Avineon ecosystem. Pp. 2-1 to 2-84 in South Florida multi– Inc, Clearwater, Florida. species recovery plan. www.fws.gov/verobeach/ Palm Beach County. 2008. Final project report for the MSRPPDFs/SFecosystem.pdf, accessed June 2015. Palm Beach County 2007 habitat mapping project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Coastal salt Prepared by Avineon Inc. www.oyster-restoration.org/ marshes. Pp. 3-553 to 3-596 in South Florida multi- wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2007_PBC_Estuarine_ species recovery plan - ecological communities. www. Habitat_Mapping_FinalReport.pdf, accessed June fws.gov/verobeach/MSRPPDFs/SaltMarsh.pdf, 2015. accessed June 2015. Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management. 2008. Lake Worth Lagoon General references and management plan revision. West Palm Beach, Florida. www.pbcgov.org/erm/lwli/pdfs/LWLMP.pdf, accessed additional regional information June 2015. Lake Worth Lagoon Initiative: www.lwli.org Saintilan N, Wilson NC, Rogers K, Rajkaran A, Krauss KW. 2014. Mangrove expansion and salt marsh Palm Beach County Environmental Resources decline at mangrove poleward limits. Global Change Management: www.pbcgov.com/erm Biology 20:147–157. Southeast Florida Regional Compact Climate Change: Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org Compact Counties. 2012. A region responds to a changing climate: regional climate action plan. South Florida Water Management District: southeastfloridaclimatecompact.files.wordpress. www.sfwmd.gov com/2014/05/regional-climate-action-plan-final-ada- compliant.pdf, accessed June 2015. South Florida Water Management District. 2006. The Regional contacts restoration plan for the Northwest Fork of the Eric Anderson, Palm Beach County Environmental Re- Loxahatchee River. www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/ source Management, [email protected] portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_sfer/portlet_prevreport/ volume1/appendices/v1_app_12-2.pdf, accessed June Marion Hedgepeth, South Florida Water Management 2015. District, [email protected] South Florida Water Management District. 2009a. Linda Sunderland, Broward County Aquatic and Wet- SFWMD GIS data catalogue. apps.sfwmd.gov/ land Resources Manager, [email protected] gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp, accessed June 2015. South Florida Water Management District. 2009b. 2009 SFWMD photointerpretation key. my.sfwmd.gov/ portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_ pdf/2009_pi-key.pdf, accessed June 2015. South Florida Water Management District. 2013. Lower east coast water supply plan update: planning document. sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/ xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/2013_lec_plan. pdf, accessed June 2015. Stevens PW, Fox SL, Montague CL. 2006. The interplay between mangroves and salt marshes at the transition between temperate and subtropical climate in Florida. Wetlands Ecology and Management 14:435–444. 134 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 12 Indian River Lagoon

Ron Brockmeyer, St. Johns River Water Management District Jeff Beal, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Brian Sharpe, Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserves Marion Hedgepeth, South Florida Water Management District John Tucker, St. Lucie County Mosquito Control and Coastal Management Services Hyun Jung Cho, Bethune-Cookman University Christina Powell, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the region ter runoff. Periodic tropical storms and hurricanes shifted barrier islands and caused inlets to open, close, or migrate The Indian River Lagoon (IRL) system extends 156 mi (FDEP 2015). Humans have attempted to restrict and sta- (250 km) along Florida’s east coast from the Ponce de Leon bilize this variability with the construction of seawalls, Inlet in Volusia County to the Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach dikes, canals, and fill. Constructed hydrologic alterations County. The large latitudinal extent of the IRL contrib- include 16 causeways, the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, utes to its high level of biodiversity, as the estuary strad- many drainage canals, and five permanent inlets (Ponce, dles temperate and tropical–subtropical climates (Swain Sebastian, Fort Pierce, St. Lucie, and Jupiter inlets). Ad- et al. 1995, FDEP 2015). The IRL system consists of a se- ditionally, the Cape Canaveral Lock connects the Banana ries of coastal lagoons (Mosquito Lagoon, Banana River River Lagoon with the Atlantic Ocean, and the C-44 ca- Lagoon, and Indian River Lagoon, Figure 12.1) bound- nal connects the St. Lucie River with Lake Okeechobee. ed by barrier islands, and the St. Lucie River Estuary at Human population in the region grew rapidly from the southern end (Figure 12.2). Watershed and resource the 1950s through the 1970s with the expansion of tour- management in the region is split between the jurisdic- ism, the space industry, and agriculture (FDEP 2015). tions of the St. Johns River Water Management District From 2010 to 2015, the population of Volusia and Brevard (SJRWMD) and the South Florida Water Management counties was projected to grow at a rate of about 4.6%. District (SFWMD) at the boundary of Indian River and Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin counties were project- St. Lucie counties. There are also five Florida Department ed to grow 6.4–7.7% during the same period, approach- of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Aquatic Preserves in ing the statewide average of 7.8% (U.S. Census 2015). the IRL system: Mosquito Lagoon, Banana River, Indian River–Malabar to Vero Beach, Indian River–Vero Beach to Fort Pierce, and Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet. Coastal wetlands Sandy barrier islands, dunes, and paleoshorelines run Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush) and Spartina parallel to the shoreline, and large shell middens from alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) dominate the salt marsh- indigenous people provide some local elevation (FDEP es found in the northern IRL (Figure 12.1), while man- 2015). Historically, the region was in a state of natural flux groves and marsh succulents (Salicornia bigelovii, Sarco- due to ephemeral inlets and seasonally variable freshwa- cornia ambigua, and Batis maritima) are more abundant Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 135

Figure 12.1. Mangrove and salt marsh extent in the northern Indian River Lagoon. Data source: SJRWMD 2009 land use/land cover data, based upon FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SJRWMD 2009a). 136 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors in the central and southern IRL (Figure 12.2, Lewis et al. (Rey et al. 1990, Brockmeyer et al. 1997). 1985). Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove), Avicennia Approximately 80% of the impounded wetlands germinans (black mangrove), and Laguncularia racemo- have been reconnected either seasonally or permanently sa (white mangrove) intermix rather than forming spe- (FDEP 2015). Wetland reconnection and restoration are a cies-specific elevation zones due to the microtidal nature major part of the Surface Water Improvement and Man- of much of the estuary (FDEP 2015). Conocarpus erectus agement Plan (SWIM) for the IRL (SJRWMD and SFW- (buttonwood) is also found at higher elevations. R. man- MD 2002). Other efforts include the planting of native gle has become more abundant in the northern Mosqui- species, removal of invasive species, and the preservation to Lagoon as a result of the lack of recent cold events, of wetlands through land acquisition (SJRWMD and SF- overtaking regions previously dominated by the more WMD 2002). cold-tolerant A. germinans (FDEP 2009a). The overall area of mangrove forests in the region has also increased Hydrology and water quality significantly since the extensive cold event mortalities in the 1960s–1980s (Cavanaugh et al. 2014, Giri and Long Historically, the IRL drainage basin was much small- 2014). This increase in mangrove habitat correlates with er, and its boundary followed the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. the reduced frequency of cold events with air tempera- Numerous canals were constructed from 1916 through tures less than −4°C (Cavanaugh et al. 2014). Neighbor- the 1950s in order to drain much of the adjacent wet- ing ecosystems include seagrass beds, blackwater streams, lands for agriculture (primarily for cattle ranging and and freshwater tidal wetlands that are predominantly low citrus orchards). These canals greatly increased both the salinity, yet are flooded at high tide. size of the IRL watershed and the rate at which water In the 1950s through the 1970s, 75–90% of the salt was delivered to the lagoon. The canals increased fresh- marshes and mangroves along the IRL were lost to devel- water flow in the rainy season, concentrating stormwater opment (Figure 12.3), impounded, or ditched in attempts runoff and dumping large quantities of freshwater and to control the salt marsh mosquito population (Taylor associated land pollutants into the lagoon (FDEP 2015). 2012). These impoundments were generally created us- Overall flow in the dry season has decreased due to ag- ing dragline excavators. During this process, sediment ricultural and urban consumption. The lagoons receive was removed from an adjacent parallel ditch and used to freshwater input from surface runoff and groundwater create an impoundment, effectively isolating coastal wet- seepage, as well as minor inputs from precipitation, lands from neighboring marshes and tidal flow. Dragline natural tributaries, and wastewater-treatment plants. ditches, networks of deep ditches and spoil piles, were In the 1960s and 1970s poorly treated wastewater was also used to combat mosquitoes. These ditches were open discharged into the IRL, resulting in poor water quali- to tidal flushing, but the higher elevation of the adjacent ty in the system, particularly near urban centers (FDEP spoil piles facilitated the establishment of invasive vege- 2015). Septic systems are still widely used in much of the tation such as Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper) area, and seepage of bacteria, phosphorus, and nitrogen (Rey et al. 2012). This impoundment and ditching of salt from old systems that are not properly maintained are marshes and the accompanying hydrologic alteration of particular concern (FDEP 2009a). likely promoted mangroves at the expense of the histor- Groundwater sources in the region include the Flor- ically abundant marsh succulents in many areas. idan Aquifer, intermediate aquifer, and surficial aquifer. Recent efforts by SFWMD, SJRWMD, and county The Floridan Aquifer and the surficial aquifer are used mosquito control districts to mitigate and restore im- for agricultural and public water supplies, although the poundment hydrology include installing culverts through Floridan aquifer becomes brackish in the southern IRL. the impoundments or removing impounded sections. Ro- The surficial aquifer contributes around 10% of all tational impoundment management is now used in much freshwater inputs into the IRL (Pandit and El-Khazen of the region, allowing seasonal connection to the estuary 1990). The SJRWMD and SFWMD have reduced permit- while continuing to control mosquito populations (Cle- ted withdrawals from the surficial aquifer in attempts to ments and Rogers 1964, Taylor 2012). In this process, the protect wetlands and prevent saltwater intrusion (FDEP wetlands are isolated and flooded via pumps during the 2015). mosquito’s summer breeding season (approximately May The barrier islands that border the east side of Mos- to October) and are left open to the estuary the remainder quito Lagoon, Banana River Lagoon, and Indian River of the year. This management option has been found to Lagoon restrict tidal flushing and currents, resulting in improve water quality, plant diversity, and fish movement high water-residence times and making the region sus- Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 137

Figure 12.2. Mangrove and salt marsh extent in the southern Indian River Lagoon. Data sources: SJRWMD 2009 and SFWMD 2008–2009 land use/land cover data, based on FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009a, SJRWMD 2009a). 138 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Figure 12.3. Changes in land use along the Indian River Lagoon from 1920 to 1995. Data source: SJRWMD ceptible to impaired water quality (FDEP 2009a, FDEP St. Lucie Estuary 2009b, FDEP 2015). Water-level changes in the Mosquito Lagoon are generally driven by wind more than by tidal The St. Lucie Estuary (SLE), which connects to the currents or rainfall (FDEP 2009a). Banana River Lagoon southern IRL, was a freshwater river until the St. Lucie requires two years for complete flushing (FDEP 2013). In Inlet was dug in 1892, resulting in saltwater intrusion up extreme summer drought conditions, evaporation, limit- to 16 mi (26 km) away at Midway Road in Fort Pierce ed freshwater input, and limited flushing have caused sa- (FDEP 2009c). Construction of the St. Lucie Canal (C- linity levels to reach 45 in Banana River Lagoon and parts 44 Canal) was completed in the 1920s, draining large of the northern IRL and southern Mosquito Lagoon areas west of the SLE and connecting water flow from (FDEP 2015). The average depth of the IRL is 4 ft (1.2 Lake Okeechobee to the south fork of the SLE (FDEP m); the water quickly warms in the summer, decreasing 2015). These freshwater inputs drastically increased the dissolved oxygen and facilitating the development of hy- sediment and nutrient load to the SLE. Depending on poxic or anoxic conditions (FDEP 2015). Flushing in the the duration and magnitude of freshwater releases from southern IRL is 10–15 times higher than in the northern Lake Okeechobee, the estuarine salinity may become oli- lagoons (FDEP 2009b, FDEP 2015). gohaline, stressing or killing estuarine plants and animals In 2010–2011, phytoplankton blooms, including a (FDEP 2015). The Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project superbloom of algae in the class Pedinophyceae, result- and IRL South Feasibility Plan components of the Com- ed in extensive losses of seagrass in Brevard and Indian prehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) empha- River counties with the largest percentage loss in Banana size decreasing the amount of large freshwater discharges River Lagoon (SJRWMD et al. 2012). These blooms were from Lake Okeechobee into the SLE (Bartell et al. 2004, followed by brown-tide blooms (caused by the alga Au- CERP 2013). The SWIM plan for the IRL, including the reoumbra lagunensis), centered in the northern IRL and SLE, is also focused on improving the quality of water en- Mosquito Lagoon in 2012 and 2013, with numerous oth- tering the system (SJRWMD and SFWMD 2002). er local blooms throughout the system. The region also The North Fork of the St. Lucie River was dredged had unusual mortality events in July 2012 and April 2013 and bermed for flood control and agriculture from the with extensive deaths of dolphins, manatees, and brown 1920s to the 1940s (FDEP 2009c). This straightening of pelicans (FDEP 2015). Research into the ecosystem-wide the river isolated much of the flood plain and the oxbows relationships that led to these algal blooms and mortality from the main river channel, resulting in a faster-flowing events are forefront in scientific and management efforts river channel with regions of stagnation and sedimenta- in the region (SJRWMD et al. 2012). tion in the former oxbows (FDEP 2009c). The North Fork Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 139 was connected to the C-23/C-24 canal system in the 1950s groves has expanded at the expense of salt marsh and as a part of the Central and Southern Florida Project, fur- other adjacent habitats (Cavanaugh et al. 2014). If ther increasing the amount of freshwater diverted into the cold events continue to be infrequent, this pattern will SLE (SFWMD 2009b). Tidal wetlands and mangrove for- likely result in continued encroachment of mangroves ests along the St. Lucie estuary are dominated by R. man- into salt marsh habitat. gle, with minor contributions from Acrostichum danaei- • Invasive vegetation: Invasive vegetation, most notably folium (giant leather fern) and Salix caroliniana (coastal the exotics S. terebinthifolius and Casuarina spp. (Aus- plain willow) (FDEP 2009c). S. terebinthifolius has over- tralian pines), encroach on the edges of coastal wetland taken much of the mangrove habitat on the North Fork of habitat, particularly on impoundments or on spoil is- the St. Lucie River, in part due to the straightening of the lands (FDEP 2015). S. terebinthifolius is particularly river channel (FDEP 2009c). A portion of the IRL South prevalent along dragline ditches and on the bermed and Feasibility Plan includes the reconnection of isolated ox- straightened portion of the North Fork of the St. Luc- bows along the North Fork in order to improve water fil- ie Estuary (FDEP 2009c). Also, native species such as tration and habitat utilization in the remnant floodplain Juniperus virginiana (red cedar) and Baccharis angusti- communities (Bartell et al. 2004). folia (saltwater false willow) have colonized these areas of high ground, and thus woody species now inhabit Threats to coastal wetlands regions of the marshes historically dominated by herbaceous vegetation. • Hydrologic alteration and water quality: The hydrology of the IRL system has been significantly altered by the construction of drainage canals, increas- Mapping and monitoring efforts ing both the size of the watershed and the rate of surface water delivery. Impoundments and dragline Water management district mapping ditching also decreased the functionality of coastal Since 1990 SJRWMD has conducted regular land wetlands, hindering their ability to improve the qual- use/land cover (LULC) sampling using aerial orthopho- ity of surface water. This combination of altered wa- tography. These mapping efforts also used wetland as- tershed hydrology, increased freshwater inflow, pollut- sessments from the late 1980s with the assumption that ed runoff, loss of wetlands, and low flushing make the regions identified as wetlands were still wetlands if they IRL highly susceptible to impaired water quality. The had not been developed. Exceptions occurred in areas in buildup of pollutants, strong temperature changes, which wetlands had been drained or experienced pro- hypoxic conditions, and superblooms have ecosys- longed dry conditions (SJRWMD 2009a). In 2004, im- tem-wide impacts on the estuary. agery had a ground sample distance resolution of 2 ft • Urban development: The rate of urban development (0.62 m), captured from a height of 20,000 ft (6096 m). and the draining of wetlands surrounding the IRL The minimum mapping unit for wetlands was 0.5 acre have slowed since their peak in the 1950s to 1970s, (0.2 ha). Land features were categorized according to but the population continues to grow, and some of the Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System the remaining impounded coastal wetlands remain (FLUCCS) (FDOT 1999) and outlined in the SJRWMD in private ownership. This limits restoration efforts, photointerpretation key (SJRWMD 2009b). Salt marsh and these wetlands are still vulnerable to development acreage increased from 1990 to 2009 in the SJRWMD, (IRLNEP 2008). largely due to impoundment removal and the reconnection of marshes to tides. These reconnections caused • Sea-level rise and climate change: Sea-level rise will regions of predominantly freshwater vegetation to shift likely drive a landward migration of coastal wetland back to a tidal wetland ecosystem. vegetation. Wetland extent will therefore decline in SFWMD also conducts regular LULC surveys within regions of urban development that lack appropriate its boundaries. Land-cover classifications for 2008–2009 buffer-zone habitat (IRLNEP 2008). The shallow ex- were based on SFWMD modifications to FLUCCS cat- tent of the lagoons makes them susceptible to warm egories (FDOT 1999, SFWMD 2009c). Minimum map- temperatures and may drive the region toward dom- ping units were 5 acres (2 ha) for uplands and 2 acres (0.8 inance by tropical and subtropical species over more ha) for wetlands. The most recent maps were made by in- temperate species (IRLNEP 2008). In recent decades, terpreting county-based aerial photography and updating since the last major freezes, the area occupied by man- 2004–2005 vector data (SFWMD 2009a). 140 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

North Fork St. Lucie River Floodplain vegetation study In 2009, four transects were established through vegetation in the North Fork St. Lucie River Floodplain to study canopy, shrub, and groundcover communities in conjunction with soil conductivity and soil moisture in the floodplain (SFWMD 2015). This research was a cooperative effort between the Coastal Ecosystems Section of SFWMD, FDEP’s Florida Park Service at the Savan- nas Preserve State Park, and the IRL Aquatic Preserve Office. The results of the survey indicated that most of the remaining floodplain consisted of hammock and bottomland hardwood communities (SFWMD 2015). Swamp communities had been limited by the placement of spoil material along much of the shoreline and at the openings of several oxbows. Most of what remains of the floodplain suffers from reduced hydroperiods. Salt- water intrusion was evidenced by the higher soil conductivity values downstream, in areas dominated by L. racemosa. Water managers are examining means of restoring upstream freshwater inflow and enhancing the floodplain habitat for fish and wildlife as CERP plans are implemented and adaptive management decisions are made.

North Fork St. Lucie River mangrove mapping St. Lucie County mapped the extent of mangroves along the North Fork St. Lucie River from Port St. Lucie Boulevard northward to the fork of Ten Mile Creek and Five Mile Creek during January–February 2013 (Figure 12.4). Observations were made on intensive shoreline scouting trips, primarily by boat but also by land. Near- ly all mangroves observed were R. mangle, with a few A. germinans at the southern end. Heights of some isolated trees were also recorded.

Salt marsh restoration at New Smyrna Beach Using NOAA Habitat Restoration funding, FWC and SJRWMD restored 5 acres (2 ha) of salt marsh in 2014 in New Smyrna Beach by removing spoil from the site Figure 12.4. Density of mangroves along the North (Figure 12.5). The marsh is directly accessible by land Fork of the St. Lucie River. and supports numerous programs for monitoring and research in conjunction with the nonprofit Marine Dis- Recommendations for protection, covery Center located on the property. The site serves as a hub for regional restoration providing opportunities for management, and monitoring developing monitoring techniques and harvesting plants • Continue efforts toward hydrologic reconnection by es- for regional projects. tablishing breaches or culverts through impoundments, Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 141

sea-level rise (IRLNEP 2008). Where needed, restore a natural gradient by removing dikes or berms between wetlands and adjacent uplands. Further research is also recommended to determine best ecosystem-level management practices in the face of changing coastal conditions (IRLNEP 2008). • Continue efforts to remove invasive species, and encourage or plant native vegetation. Restoration efforts that re-establish proper wetland elevations facilitate the recolonization of native coastal wetland vegetation. Educate residents about invasive vegetation and continue efforts to rapidly recognize and address new invasive species.

Figure 12.5. Restored salt marsh at New Smyrna Works cited Beach, on property of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Bartell SM, Burns JJ, Fontane DG, McAnally WH, Conservation Commission. Motz LH, Twilley RR. 2004. Independent Scientific Review of the Indian River Lagoon – South Project enabling aquatic species to travel between lagoon and Implementation Report. 141.232.10.32/pm/studies/ wetland habitats (IRLNEP 2008). Where practical, fully study_docs/irl_south/050604_irl_s_panel_report_pir. restore impoundments by returning dike material to the pdf, accessed September 2015. borrow ditch and grading to adjacent wetland elevation Basin Management Action Plan. 2013. Basin management (Rey et al. 2012). Likewise, continue restoration of ar- action plan for the implementation of total eas with dragline ditches and spoil piles to re-establish maximum daily loads for nutrients in the Indian River more natural wetland elevations. Encourage wetland Lagoon basin central Indian River Lagoon. Central protection, restoration, and management on private Indian River Lagoon Stakeholders and the Florida lands; pursue land purchases if necessary (IRLNEP Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. 2008, Rey et al. 2012). www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/docs/bmap/ • Continue installation of living shorelines with native veg- central-irl-bmap.pdf, accessed September 2015. etation, which helps to prevent erosion, stabilize shores, Brockmeyer RE, Rey JR, Virnstein RW, Gilmore RG, and improve water quality (FDEP 2015). Nutrient reduc- Earnest L. 1997. Rehabilitation of impounded tion and improvement of water quality are focus areas estuarine wetlands by hydrologic reconnection to the in many IRL management plans; coastal wetlands act as Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Journal of Wetlands vegetative buffers and assist in achieving these goals (SJR- Ecology and Management 4:93–109. WMD and SFWMD 2002, BMAP 2013, FDEP 2015). Cavanaugh KC, Kellner JR, Forde AJ, Gruner DS, Parker JD, Rodriguez W, Feller IC. 2014. Poleward expansion • The susceptibility of the IRL ecosystem to water qual- of mangroves is a threshold response to decreased ity issues, superblooms, and subsequent unusual mor- frequency of extreme cold events. Proceedings of the tality events highlights the need for further study to National Academy of Sciences of the United States of fully elucidate the cause-and-effect relationship in the America 111:723–727. overall ecosystem. Clements R, Rogers AJ. 1964. Studies of impounding • The water quality of the St. Lucie Estuary is tightly for the control of salt marsh mosquitoes in Florida, linked to freshwater releases from Lake Okeechobee. 1958–1963. Mosquito News 24:265–276. Freshwater releases should be managed to reduce the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 2013. frequency and duration of extreme salinities and high Central and Southern Florida project. Project nutrient loads in the St. Lucie Estuary (SJRWMD and Management Plan Indian River Lagoon-South. SFWMD 2002). Army Corps of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District. 141.232.10.32/pm/pmp/ • As a part of urban planning, establish or enhance up- pmp_docs/pmp_07_irl_south/IRLS_PMP_Main_ land buffers along coastal wetlands to enable shore- and_App_v3.0%20_30_Dec_2013.pdf, accessed ward migration of coastal vegetation in the face of September 2015. 142 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2009a. Rey JR, Carlson DB, Brockmeyer RE. 2012. Coastal Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic Preserve Management wetland management in Florida: environmental Plan. Tallahassee. publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/cama/ concerns and human health. Wetlands Ecology and plans/aquatic/Mosquito_Lagoon_Aquatic_ Management 20:197–211. Preserve_2009.pdf, accessed September 2015. Rey JR, Shaffer J, Tremain D, Crossman RA, Kain T. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1990. Effects of re-establishing tidal connections 2009b. TMDL report: nutrient and dissolved oxygen in two impounded tropical marshes on fishes and TMDLs for the Indian River Lagoon and Banana physical conditions. Wetlands 10:27–47. River Lagoon. Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/ South Florida Water Management District. 2009a. water/tmdl/docs/tmdls/final/gp5/indian-banana- SFWMD GIS data catalogue. apps.sfwmd.gov/ nutrient-do-tmdl.pdf, accessed September 2015. gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp, accessed Florida Department of Environmental Protection. September 2015. 2009c. North Fork St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve South Florida Water Management District. 2009b. Management Plan. Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/ St. Lucie River Watershed protection plan. Florida coastal/sites/northfork/pub/NorthFork_Plan_2009. Department of Environmental Protection, Florida pdf, accessed September 2015. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Services. www.sfwmd.gov/sites/default/files/ 2013. Basin management action plan for the documents/ne_slrwpp_main_123108.pdf, accessed implementation of total maximum daily loads for September 2015 nutrients in the Indian River Lagoon Basin Banana South Florida Water Management District. 2009c. 2009 River Lagoon. Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/ SFWMD photointerpretation key. my.sfwmd.gov/ water/watersheds/docs/bmap/banana-river-lagoon- portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_ bmap.pdf, accessed September 2015. pdf/2009_pi-key.pdf, accessed September 2015. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. South Florida Water Management District. 2015. North 2015. Indian River Lagoon aquatic preserves system Fork St. Lucie River Floodplain vegetation technical management plan. Tallahassee. publicfiles.dep.state. Report. WR-2015-005, West Palm Beach. www. fl.us/CAMA/plans/aquatic/IRLAP_Management_ conservationallianceslc.org/uploads/5/0/3/6/50361177/ Plan.pdf, accessed September 2015. north_fork_sle_vegetation_072115.pdf, accessed Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. September 2015. Florida land use, cover and forms classification St. Johns River Water Management District. 2009a. system, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, SJRWMD GIS data catalogue. www.sjrwmd. Thematic Mapping Section. www.dot.state. com/gisdevelopment/docs/themes.html, accessed fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/ September 2015. fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed September 2015. St. Johns River Water Management District. 2009b. Giri CP, Long J. 2014. Mangrove reemergence in 2009 Land cover and land use classification system the northernmost range limit of eastern Florida. photointerpretation key. Designed by Patterson K. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Hong DX, of Geonex Corporation. ftp://secure. (Letter) 111:E1447–E1448. sjrwmd.com/disk6b/lcover_luse/lcover2009/lu2009_ Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. 2008. PI_Key/keylist.html, accessed September 2015. Indian River Lagoon comprehensive conservation St. Johns River Water Managment District and and management plan update. www.epa.gov/ South Florida Water Management District. 2002. sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/ccmp_ Indian River Lagoon surface water improvement update_2008_final.pdf, accessed September 2015. and management plan. www.sjrwmd.com/ Lewis RR, Gilmore RG Jr., Crewz DW, Odum WE. 1985. SWIMplans/2002_IRL_SWIM_Plan_Update.pdf, Mangrove habitat and fishery resources of Florida. accessed September 2015. Pp. 281–336 in Seaman W Jr. (ed.) Florida aquatic St. Johns River Water Managment District et al. 2012. habitat and fishery resources. Florida Chapter, Indian River Lagoon 2011 superbloom plan of American Fisheries Society, Kissimmee. investigation. www.sjrwmd.com/indianriverlagoon/ Pandit A, El-Khazen CC. 1990. Groundwater seepage technicaldocumentation/pdfs/2011superbloom_ into the Indian River Lagoon at Port St. Lucie. Florida investigationplan_June_2012.pdf, accessed September Scientist 53:169–179. 2015. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 143

Swain HM, Breininger DR, Busby DS, Clark KB, Cook SB, Day RA. 1995. Introduction to the Indian River Biodiversity Conference. Bulletin of Marine Science 57:1–7. Taylor DD. 2012. Removing the sands (sins?) of our past: dredge spoil removal and saltmarsh restoration along the Indian River Lagoon, Florida (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 20:213–218. U.S. Census. 2015. United States Census Bureau State & County Quick Facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts/, accessed March 2017.

General references and additional regional information SJRWMD coastal wetlands restoration: www.sjrwmd.com/coastalrestoration/ Indian River Lagoon Protection Initiative: www.sjrwmd.com/indianriverlagoon/initiative.html

Regional contacts Ron Brockmeyer, St. Johns River Water Management District, [email protected] Jeff Beal, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com- mission, [email protected] Marion Hedgepeth, South Florida Water Management District, [email protected] Hyun Jung Cho, Bethune-Cookman University, [email protected] 144 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Chapter 13 Northeast Florida

Nikki Dix, Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Andrea Noel, Northeast Florida Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Ron Brockmeyer, St. Johns River Water Management District Hyun Jung Cho, Bethune-Cookman University Shauna Ray Allen, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, National Park Service Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Description of the region deepening at its mouth in Jacksonville and by the construction of the Fulton Cut, which reduced tidal flow in The coast of northeast Florida is a mosaic of inter- the area. The Guana Dam was constructed in 1957 across connected estuarine habitats that include salt marshes, the Guana River to improve hunting and fishing grounds. salt barrens, tidal creeks, and open water (Figure 13.1). Originally located 394 ft (120 m) south of its current po- Barrier islands, sand ridges, and dunes are found off the sition, the St. Augustine inlet was modified in 1940 to im- coast, protecting the extensive salt marshes by buffering prove navigation. Jetties were constructed on either side energy from Atlantic waves, tides, and winds. Major river to stabilize the inlet. The Matanzas inlet has not been systems include the Nassau, St. Johns, Guana, Tolomato, improved, although the construction of the Intracoastal and Matanzas rivers. The St. Johns River has the largest Waterway has reduced current velocity and increased sed- watershed in Florida and is often described as a series iment deposition, such that the channel must be dredged of interconnected lakes with a slow northern flow (NPS (Frazel 2009). The Nassau River lacks channels or stabili- 1996). The eastern coast of Florida achieved its current zation structures, although the location of tidal channels shoreline 5,000 years ago after sea-level rise stabilized fol- and the shape of Nassau Sound have changed significantly lowing the last ice age. The coast consists of multiple par- in the past century in response to a decrease in sediment allel terraces; these paleoshorelines were formed by vari- supply and the shoreline stabilization of the St. Marys and able sea levels during the Pleistocene (Frazel 2009). Sandy St. Johns rivers (NPS 1996, Browder and Hobensack 2003). marine sediments are the largest component of the soils, Ground water is extracted from multiple depths in- although Native American populations that lived in the cluding the Floridan Aquifer, deep artesian wells, and a area left behind shell middens and burial mounds (Frazel shallow layer of freshwater (Frazel 2009, GTMNERR 2009). Average annual rainfall is 55 in. (1.4 m); half of this 2009). The Floridan Aquifer is about 2,000 ft (610 m) precipitation falls between June and mid-October. Pass- thick and is located approximately 100 ft (30 m) below ing northeasters, tropical storms, and hurricanes bring the soil surface in Volusia County and is more than 500 strong waves to the region and cause extensive erosion ft (152 m) deep near the Georgia border (Scott and Ha- along the coast. jishafie 1980). Average water levels of the Floridan Aqui- The hydrology of the northeast coast of Florida has fer have dropped due to increasing urban and agricultural been altered by the Intracoastal Waterway, dikes, drain- use (NPS 1996). Saltwater intrusion is a concern for fresh- age ditches, and inland wells (Frazel 2009). The hydrology water supplies, particularly on the barrier islands (NPS of the St. Johns River has been changed by dredging and 1996, Frazel 2009). Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 145

Figure 13.1. Salt marsh and mangrove extent in Northeast Florida. Data source: SJRWMD 2009a land use/land cover data, based on FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SJRWMD 2009a). 146 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

St. Johns, Flagler, and Volusia counties than −4°C in recent decades (Cavanaugh et al. 2014). The mangrove expansion seen in recent decades (Table 13.1) Several reserves, state parks, and preserves are found is in part recovery from the cold-event mortalities of the along the northeast coast, including the Guana Tolo- 1960s through the 1980s (Giri and Long 2014). Much of mato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve the current extent of mangrove swamps, particularly the (GTMNERR). The reserve comprises approximately 75,000 cluster north of the Ponce de Leon Inlet (Figure 13.1), can acres (30,350 ha) of relatively undeveloped coastal and estu- be seen in 1943 land cover maps created by the SJRWMD. arine habitat and encloses a narrow (east–west) bar-bounded estuarine ecosystem that spans approximately 35 mi (56 Although parts of the current expansion involves previ- km) north to south (Figure 13.2). The city of St. Augustine ously occupied mangrove habitats, a comparison between separates GTMNERR into northern and southern com- historical records and the current mangrove extent on the ponents; the northern component is associated with the east coast have found that their northernmost occurrence Tolomato and Guana river estuaries, while the southern is expanding (Williams et al. 2014). component incorporates the Matanzas River estuary. The The overlapping distribution of salt marsh and man- GTMNERR is biogeographically positioned at the eco- grove habitats in the GTMNERR provides a unique op- tone of two emergent vegetation habitats: salt marsh in portunity to examine the potential effects of climate the north (dominated by Spartina alterniflora, smooth change and sea-level rise on the distribution and diversity cordgrass) and mangroves in the south (dominated by Avi- of emergent intertidal vegetation in this transitional zone. cennia germinans, black mangroves) (Zomlefer et al. 2006, Numerous fish, invertebrate, bird, and reptile species rely Leitholf 2008, Frazel 2009). The Spartina-dominated low upon these diverse estuarine habitats as a refuge from pred- marsh is intermixed with and followed by the high-marsh ators and habitat for foraging and reproduction (Odum species Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush), Salicornia and McIvor 1990, Kneib 1997, Sheaves 2005). Changes spp. (glassworts), and Batis maritima (saltwort). About in the habitat ranges for these emergent intertidal marsh 20% of the land in the GTMNERR watershed is salt vegetation species may significantly impact numerous or- marsh; the remainder is pinelands, shrub and brushlands, ganisms throughout the estuary, since dominant vegetation hardwood hammocks, and barren lands. Oyster beds are is one of the most important factors determining the eco- common in the intertidal zones, while muddy and sandy logical function of coastal wetlands (Weinstein et al. 1997). tidal flats, barren of vegetation, can be found along channels and creeks (Frazel 2009). Nassau and Duval counties St. Johns County contains the northernmost mangrove swamps and recorded examples of A. germinans, Nassau and Duval counties include the largest es- Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove), and Laguncular- tuarine marsh system on the east coast of Florida (NPS ia racemosa (white mangrove) on the Atlantic coast of 1996). The St. Johns River, Fort George River, and Nas- Florida (Zomlefer et al. 2006, Frazel 2009, Williams et sau River flow directly into the Atlantic Ocean after col- al. 2014). Mangroves are not visible in St. Johns County lecting water flowing from many meandering tributaries in Figure 13.2 because land-cover mapping classifies pre- in this extensive salt marsh (Figure 13.3). In 2009, 29% dominant vegetation cover and does not show the extent of the area bordering a lake or waterway in the St. Johns of individual trees or clusters of mangroves. The primary River Basin was residential, while 45% was salt marsh or factor limiting the northern extent of mangroves is tem- freshwater wetlands (LSJRBR 2014). Although parts of perature. In South Florida, mangrove forests thrive and the area are highly populated, the overall proportions of replace salt marsh vegetation primarily due to shading residential land and other land-use categories remained (Lugo and Snedaker 1974, Odum et al. 1982). The north- fairly stable from 2000 to 2009. The close association be- ernmost occurrence of mangrove trees varies depending tween urban and industrial areas and estuarine wetlands on the frequency of severe freezes in winter. Cold events in the St. Johns River Basin results in wetlands receiving in 1962, the late 1970s, and the 1980s led to uneven man- freshwater that is low in dissolved oxygen and high in nu- grove mortality along the east coast of Florida as far down trients and other pollutants (LSJRBR 2014). as West Palm Beach (Odum and McIvor 1990). As evident There are multiple state parks in Nassau and Duval in land use/land cover maps created by the St. Johns Riv- counties (Big and Little Talbot Island, Fort George Is- er Water Management District (SJRWMD), mangrove land, Kathryn Abbey, and Amelia Island). Preserves in- acreage has increased in recent decades (Table 13.1). This clude the Nassau River–St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic increase in mangrove habitat is likely a response to the re- Preserve and the Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve. duced occurrence of cold events with air temperature less The Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve covers Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 147

Figure 13.2. Salt marsh and mangrove extent in St. Johns, Flagler, and Volusia counties. Data source: SJRWMD 2009a land use/land cover data, based upon FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SJRWMD 2009a).

46,000 acres (18,600 ha) and contains extensive S. alterni- Threats to coastal wetlands flora and J. roemerianus salt marshes (Figure 13.3). The preserve lies in the southeastern reaches of the Atlantic • Coastal development: Rates of population growth Coastal Plain and includes the outflows of the Nassau vary widely along the northeastern coast of Florida. Al- and St. Johns rivers (NPS 1996). though population growth in Nassau, Duval, and Volu- 148 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Table 13.1. Acreages of mangrove swamps (FLUCCS low, because there are no major tributaries. The altered 6120) and salt marshes (FLUCCS 6420) in Northeast hydrology brought on by sea-level rise and changes to Florida. Data source: SJRWMD 2009a. freshwater availability can decrease overall ecosystem services of wetlands, such as primary productivity and Salt marsh Year Mangrove acres acres nutrient removal (Scavia et al. 2002, Craft et al. 2009). 1990 4 87, 515 Additionally, a continued decline in the frequency of cold temperatures is facilitating the northern expansion 1995 56 84,800 of mangroves (Cavanaugh et al. 2014). If temperature 2000 1,256 83,290 does not limit mangrove growth, the trees can shade out 2004 1,360 82,985 and eventually replace salt marsh, altering the balance 2009 1,573 82,489 between salt marsh and mangrove swamp in coastal habitats (Lugo and Snedaker 1974, Odum et al. 1982). • Altered hydrology: Hydrology has been altered lo- sia counties was below the statewide average and grew cally by the construction of mosquito ditches, dikes, between 5.6 and 7.0% between 2010 and 2015, St. Johns dams, and other water-control structures (Frazel 2009). and Flagler counties exceeded statewide rates and grew Dredged ditches and channels result in saltwater intru- at 19.3% and 10.1%, respectively, during the same pe- sion into the freshwater zone. Roads and trails (partic- riod (U.S. Census 2015). Demand for waterfront access ularly highway A1A) function as impoundments along increases with population growth, and construction of the shore, preventing natural sheet flow, concentrat- marinas and waterfront properties is one of the great- ing runoff, and frequently diverting freshwater runoff est threats to coastal wetland habitat and water qual- from wetlands (FDEP 2008a, FDEP 2008b). As the ity (Frazel 2009). Increased urban development harms population in the region grows, the increasing demand coastal wetlands due to filling of marshes, construction for freshwater will likely result in salinity changes for of docks and bulkheads, increased erosion and water coastal and inland wetlands (SJRWMD 2012, LSJRBR pollution, and a growing demand for freshwater. Miti- 2014). The predicted increases in salinity may be out- gation is commonly used as an option for compensating side the tolerances of the current vegetation, particular- for development of wetland habitat, but the wetlands ly in freshwater and transitional wetlands. that are created or restored in mitigation do not always perform as well as the original, undisturbed wetland • Erosion: The sandy beaches and barrier islands of (Moreno-Mateos et al. 2012, LSJRBR 2014). Damage Northeast Florida are dynamic and active shorelines. by vehicles is an additional impact of human use of nat- Wave energy, passing storms, boat traffic, and vehicle ural regions. Off-road vehicular traffic is permitted on traffic on the beach all contribute to erosion and mod- many beaches in this area, but unauthorized off-road ification of the shoreline (Frazel 2009). Coastal erosion traffic also causes long-term damage in the salt marshes. is a significant problem along the Intracoastal Water- way due to high wave energy from boat wakes, con- • Climate change and sea-level rise: Projected sea-lev- verting salt marshes and oyster beds into tidal flats and el rise is expected to exacerbate shoreline erosion mounds of dead shell. While wave energy, storms, and and necessitate landward migration of coastal wet- the migration of barrier islands are natural processes, lands. When the Sea Level Affecting Marches Model shoreline migration and erosion threaten development (SLAMM) was applied to the GTMNERR area with and navigation along the coast, prompting shoreline scenarios of 0.7–5.2 ft (0.2–1.6 m) of sea-level rise, it stabilization and restoration projects. Inlet stabilization predicted that changes to vegetation land cover would and shoreline hardening change the foci of erosional extend 1.2–3.1 mi (2–5 km) inland of the shoreline (Lin- forces, destabilizing other locations and threatening hoss et al. 2015). Coastal wetland acreage will be lost coastal wetlands (Browder and Hobensack 2003). if sediment accretion does not keep pace with sea-level rise or if topography or coastal development hinders • Water quality: Water quality in the St. Johns River be- landward migration (Scavia et al. 2002, Linhoss et al. comes considerably degraded, particularly adjacent to 2015). The St. Johns River has relatively low suspended highly industrialized districts including paper mills and sediment delivery, making it difficult for sediment ac- landfills. Nonpoint sources of pollution include storm- cretion to keep pace with the rate of sea-level rise (LS- water runoff and poorly functioning septic systems JRBR 2014). Sediment delivery to the marshes lining (NPS 1996, Wicklein 2004). Tidal creeks are character- the Intracoastal Waterway in Northeast Florida is also ized by poor flushing, resulting in long pollutant resi- Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 149

Figure 13.3. Salt marsh extent in Nassau and Duval counties. Data source: SJRWMD 2009a land use/land cover data, based upon FLUCCS classifications (FDOT 1999, SJRWMD 2009a). 150 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

wetlands had been drained or experienced prolonged dry conditions (SJRWMD 2009a). In 2004, imagery had a 2-ft (0.62 m) ground sample distance resolution, captured from a height of 20,000 ft (6,096 m). The minimum mapping unit for wetlands was 0.5 acre (0.2 ha). Land features were categorized according to the Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System (FDOT 1999) and outlined in the SJRWMD photointerpretation key (SJRWMD 2009b).

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve monitoring Figure 13.4. Acreages of mangrove swamps and salt marshes in northeast Florida. Source: SJRWMD 2009a. Salt marsh and mangrove sites are monitored in the GTMNERR as part of the national System-Wide Mon- itoring Program, which is designed to study ecological dence times. Poor water quality ratings due to elevated characteristics and dynamic responses to local and global levels of phosphorus and nitrogen were observed in the changes (NOAA 2011). The GTMNERR’s emergent in- upstream reaches of the Nassau River, St. Johns River, tertidal vegetation monitoring protocol is a combination and Clapboard Creek (Gregory et al. 2011). High con- of protocols from National Estuarine Research Reserve centrations of heavy metals were found in sediments System Biological Monitoring (Moore 2013), Nation- along the St. Johns River in Duval County. Other wa- al Park Service Southeast Coastal Network Salt Marsh ter-quality concerns include excess nutrients, organic Monitoring (Curtis and Asper 2012) and the Louisiana priority pollutants, bacterial growth, and high turbidity Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resource Di- due to increased suspended solids (NPS 1996, Wicklein vision (Folse and West 2004). Components of monitoring 2004, LSJRBR 2014). Improvements have been made to include permanent emergent intertidal vegetation plots, water quality in some areas, and there have been overall which are used to determine canopy height and species declines in fecal coliform bacteria and nutrient levels in percent cover (see full description in Chapter 1). Rod Sur- the St. Johns River, although algal blooms remain fre- face Elevation Tables (RSETs) and marker horizons are quent (LSJRBR 2014). also used to monitor marsh elevation and accretion (Ca- Other regions with concern for water quality in- hoon et al. 2002a, 2002b). Initial results indicate that most clude Pellicer Creek, located between Flagler and St. sites are dominated by S. alterniflora, with J. roemerianus Johns counties, and the dredged canals along the Palm becoming more prevalent in the high marsh. Transects Coast (SJRWMD 2003, FDEP 2008c). High densities have shown that from shore to upland, S. alterniflora be- of sewage-treatment systems along the Palm Coast comes shorter, and J. roemerianus increases in height. contribute to water-quality concerns. The concentra- Mangroves are monitored following Moore (2013). tions of heavy metals, nutrients, coliform bacteria, and Trunk diameter and formation, vegetative ground cover, dissolved oxygen fall outside of recommended limits. canopy height, and canopy characteristics are recorded in Sedimentation, a growing number of septic systems, mangrove plots. Additional monitoring evaluates spatial and the quality of urban stormwater runoff are also and temporal patterns in vegetation and soil pore-water concerns along the Guana, Tolomato and Matanzas chemistry. Initial results found that when mangroves were rivers (SJRWMD 2003, FDEP 2008c). present, A. germinans was predominant. Weather (e.g., temperature, wind speed and direc- Mapping and monitoring efforts tion, light, and precipitation) and water quality parameters (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, Sec- Water management district mapping chi depth, total suspended solids, turbidity, chlorophyll a, nitrate, nitrite, ammonium, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, SJRWMD has conducted regular land use/land cover orthophosphate, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform) sampling since 1990 using aerial orthophotography (Table are also monitored throughout the reserve using stan- 13.1, Figure 13.4). These efforts have also used wetland as- dard NERRS protocols. Data and metadata are avail- sessments from the late 1980s with the assumption that re- able at www.nerrsdata.org and may also be obtained by gions identified as wetlands were still wetlands if they had contacting the research coordinator at GTMNERR. not been developed. Exceptions occurred in areas in which Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 151

National Park Service salt marsh elevation monitoring and vegetation mapping The National Park Ser- vice’s Southeast Coast Net- work monitors soil salinity and rates of sediment accretion or subsidence in several salt marshes across the southeastern United States. Monitoring includes the de- ployment of RSETs following a version of the Louisi- ana Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resource Division protocol (Folse and West 2004). Monitoring occurs at eight locations including the Timucuan Eco- logical and Historic Preserve and Fort Matanzas Nation- al Monument in Northeast Florida. A full description of the program can be found at science.nature.nps. gov/im/units/secn/monitor/ saltmarsh.cfm. The Ocean and Coastal Resources Branch of the Na- tional Park Service recently completed a geospatial mapping project to classify and quantify the extent of J. roemerianus and Spartina spp. in the preserve. These data can Figure 13.5. Example of detailed land cover and emergent vegetation mapping be used to quantify changes performed by the SJRWMD in the GTMNERR (Kinser et al. 2007). in the community from year to year and to predict future change. Other classes such SJRWMD and GTMNERR detailed emergent as water, trees, other upland vegetative communities, and salt flats were also quantified. Color infrared orthoimag- vegetation mapping ery (2012), LiDAR data (2007), and Trimble eCognition Salt marsh and other tidal communities were software were used to accomplish this object-based image mapped by the St. Johns River Water Management analysis. This technique groups neighboring homoge- District within the GTMNERR using 2006 ortho- neous pixels and then uses contextual properties to en- photography and 2004 digital orthophoto quarter able the analyst to accurately classify a landscape (Cantor quads (DOQQs). Classifications of land cover were 2014). The data set can be downloaded at data.doi.gov/ species-specific for mangroves and herbaceous plants dataset/timucuan-ecological-and-historic-preserve-salt- (Kinser et al. 2007). Figure 13.5 shows an example of marsh-classification. the detail and high resolution of this mapping effort. 152 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Recommendations for protection, Works cited management, and monitoring Browder AE, Hobensack WA. 2003. Morphological The numerous parks and preserves in this region changes at Nassau Sound, northeast Florida, USA. list specific recommendations for their area of concern. Pp. 1–13 in Proceedings of the 2003 National Selected examples are listed below. Most common rec- Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Ponte ommendations include restoring the natural hydrolo- Vedra Beach. Florida Shore & Beach Preservation gy, controlling sediment, converting armored shore- Association, Tallahassee. www.olsen-associates.com/ lines into living shorelines, and restoring or protecting sites/default/files/docs/pubs/Browder%20and%20 wetlands. Hobensack_Nassau%20Sound%20FSBPA03%20 preprint.pdf, accessed June 2015. • Prevent unauthorized traffic by off-road vehicles in Cahoon DR, Lynch JC, Hensel P, Boumans R, Perez salt marshes by educating the public and erecting BC, Segura B, Day JW Jr. 2002a. High precision signs and fences. When damage occurs, restoration measurement of wetland sediment elevation: I. efforts may help the salt marsh recover more rapidly Recent improvements to the sedimentation-erosion (GTMNERR 2009). table. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72:730–733. • Coastal Northeast Florida differs from many other Cahoon DR, Lynch JC, Perez BC, Segura B, Holland regions of the state in that invasive vegetation such as R, Stelly C, Stephenson G, Hensel P. 2002b. High- Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper) and Casu- precision measurements of wetland sediment arina spp. (Australian pines) are not well established. elevation: II. The rod surface elevation table. Journal Active vigilance is required to ensure that these and of Sedimentary Research 72:734–739. other nonnatives do not proliferate (FDEP 2008a, Cantor J. 2014. Timucuan Ecological and Historic GTMNERR 2009). Preserve salt marsh classification. Timucuan • The Lower St. Johns River Basin Report recommends Ecological and Historic Preserve Geospatial intensive monitoring of impacts to wetlands to deter- Dataset–2218509. National Park Service. data. mine the cumulative effect of incremental wetland loss doi.gov/dataset/timucuan-ecological-and-historic- to overall function and ecosystem services (LSJRBR preserve-salt-marsh-classification, accessed June 2015. 2014). The remaining wetlands need to be preserved, Cavanaugh KC, Kellner JR, Forde AJ, Gruner DS, Parker enhanced, or restored as needed. JD, Rodriguez W, Feller IC. 2014. Poleward expansion of mangroves is a threshold response to decreased • Goals of the 2008 Surface Water Improvement and frequency of extreme cold events. Proceedings of the Management Plan (SWIM) for the Lower St. Johns Riv- National Academy of Sciences of the United States of er Basin include improving water quality, restoration/ America 111:723–727. protection of natural systems, preserving the flood Craft C, Clough J, Ehman J, Joye S, Park R, Pennings S, plain, maintaining natural hydrology, and erosion con- Gua H, Machmuler M. 2009. Forecasting the effects trol (SJRWMD 2008). of accelerated sea level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem • Water quality and hydrology are critical components services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment to maintaining the estuary in the Timucuan Ecological 7:73–78. and Historic Preserve. Needs identified by the National Curtis AC, Asper J. 2012. Salt marsh vegetation Park Service include hydrologic modeling and monitor- monitoring. Southeast Coast Network Standard ing of the three rivers, continuous water quality mon- Operating Procedure NPS/SECN-SOP-1.3.9. itoring, and the restoration and protection of living Florida Department of Environmental Protection. shorelines (Gregory et al. 2011, NPS 2012). 2008a. Fort George Island Cultural State Park unit management plan. Tallahassee. www. • Goals listed within the management plans of Fort dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ George Island Cultural State Park and Amelia Island FortGeorgeIslandCulturalStatePark.pdf, accessed State Park include monitoring and protection of nat- June 2015. ural resources that have altered hydrology due to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. construction of ditches and roads. Specific goals in- 2008b. Amelia Island State Park, Big Talbot Island clude salt marsh restoration and continued monitoring State Park, Little Talbot Island State Park, and and removal of invasive vegetation (FDEP 2008a, FDEP George Crady Bridge Fishing Pier State Park unit 2008b). management plan. Tallahassee. www.dep.state.fl.us/ Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 153

parks/planning/parkplans/BigTalbotIslandStatePark. Leitholf S. 2008. Assessing and modeling mangrove pdf, accessed June 2015. forest dynamics along the temperate-subtropical Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008c. ecotone in Eastern Florida. Master’s Thesis. Water quality assessment report: Upper East Coast. University of Central Florida, Orlando. FDEP Division of Environmental Assessment and Linhoss AC, Kiker G, Shirley M, Frank K. 2015. Sea level Restoration. Tallahassee. rise, inundation, and marsh migration: simulation Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. impacts on developed lands and environmental Florida land use, cover and forms classification systems. Journal of Coastal Research 31:36–46. system, 3rd edition. State Topographic Bureau, Lower St. Johns River Basin Report. 2014. State of the Thematic Mapping Section. www.dot.state. river report for the Lower St. Johns River Basin, fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/ Florida. Prepared for the City of Jacksonville by fluccmanual1999.pdf, accessed June 2015. the University of North Florida and Jacksonville Folse TM, West JL. 2004. A standard operating University. digitalcommons.unf.edu/cgi/viewcontent. procedures manual for the Louisiana Department cgi?article=1006&context=sotr, accessed June 2015. of Natural Resource’s Coastal Restoration Division: Lugo AE, Snedaker SC. 1974. The ecology of mangroves. methods for data collection, quality assurance/quality Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:39–64. control, storage, and products. Louisiana Department Moore K. 2013. NERRS SWMP vegetation monitoring of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge. www.clu-in.org/ protocol: long-term monitoring of estuarine download/contaminantfocus/sediments/Louisiana- vegetation communities. National Estuarine SOP-Manual.pdf, accessed June 2015. Research Reserve System, Technical Report. Frazel D. 2009. Site profile of the Guana Tolomato Gloucester, Virginia. gtmnerr.org/documents/ Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve. Research_Publications/NERRS_Vegetation_ Ponte Vedra, Florida. coast.noaa.gov/data/docs/nerrs/ Monitoring_2013-09-06.pdf, accessed June 2015. Reserves_GTM_SiteProfile.pdf, accessed June 2015. Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comin FA, Yockteng Giri CP, Long J. 2014. Mangrove reemergence in R. 2012. Structural and functional loss in restored the northernmost range limit of eastern Florida. wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol 10: e1001247. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Letter) 111:E1447–E1448. 2011. National Estuarine Research Reserve System: Gregory MB, Devivo JC, Flournoy PH, Smith KA. system-wide monitoring program plan. Silver Assessment of estuarine water and sediment Spring, Maryland. coast.noaa.gov/data/docs/nerrs/ quality at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Research_2011SWMPPlan.pdf, accessed June 2015. Preserve, 2008. Natural Resource Data Series National Park Service. 1996. Water resources NPS/SECN/NRDS—2011/134. National management plan, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Park Service. irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/ Preserve. www.nature.nps.gov/water/planning/ nloadDigitalFile?code=427391&file=TIMU_2011_ management_plans/Timucuan_screen.pdf, accessed Coastal_Assessment_2008.pdf, accessed June 2015. June 2015. Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Odum WE, McIvor CC. 1990. Mangroves. Pp. 517–548 in Research Reserve. 2009. GTMNERR management Myers RL, Ewel JJ (eds.) Ecosystems of Florida. Uni- plan July 2009–June 2014. Florida Department of versity of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Environmental Protection and National Oceanic and Odum WE, McIvor CC, Smith TJ III. 1982. The ecology Atmospheric Administration. Tallahassee. www.dep. of the mangroves of south Florida: a community state.fl.us/coastal/sites/gtm/pub/GTM_Management_ profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Plan_Amendment_1.pdf, accessed June 2015. Biological Services. US FWS/OBS 81: 24, Washington, Kinser P, Curtis D, Beck J, Yates C. 2007. Coastal D.C. www.nwrc.usgs.gov/techrpt/81-24.pdf, accessed wetlands of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National June 2015. Estuarine Research Reserve in Northeast Florida Scavia D, Field JC, Boesch DF, Buddemeier W, Burkett (Draft). St. Johns River Water Management District V, Cayan DR, Fogarty M, Harwell MA, Howarth and Geodecisions, Palatka. RW, Mason C, Reed DJ, Royer TC, Sallenger Kneib RT. 1997. The role of tidal marshes in the ecology AH, Titus JG. 2002. Climate change impacts on of estuarine nekton. Oceanography and Marine U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries Biology: An Annual Review 35:163–220. 25:149–164. 154 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Scott TM, Hajishafie M. 1980. Top of Floridian Aquifer Zomlefer WB, Judd WS, Giannasi DE. 2006. Northern- in the St. Johns River Water Management District. most limit of Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove; Rhi- Map Series Tallahassee Issue 95. Florida Department zophoraceae) in St. Johns County, Florida. Castanea of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology and 71:239–244. SJRWMD. ufdc.ufl.edu/UF90000348/00001, accessed June 2015. General references and Sheaves M. 2005. Nature and consequences of biological connectivity in mangrove systems. Marine Ecology additional regional information Progress Series 302:293–305. National Park Service salt marsh elevation monitoring: St. Johns River Water Management District. 2003. science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/secn/monitor/ Northern coastal basin surface water improvement saltmarsh.cfm and management plan. Prepared by Haydt PJ and Fra- zel Inc. www.sjrwmd.com/SWIMplans/2003_NCB_ National Park Service geomorphology and geology SWIM_plan.pdf, accessed June 2015. projects: irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2209252 St. Johns River Water Management District. 2008. Lower www.nature.nps.gov/geology/inventory/gre_ St. Johns River Basin surface water improvement and publications.cfm management plan update. Prepared by SJRWMD, Planning for sea-level rise in the Matanzas Basin: Wildwood Consulting Inc. and Lower St. Johns River planningmatanzas.org Technical Advisory Committee. Palatka, Florida. www.lsjr.org/pdf/SWIM_Plan_LSJRB_7-22-2008_ Final.pdf, accessed June 2015. Regional contacts St. Johns River Water Management District. 2009a. Nikki Dix, Guana Tolomato Matanzas National SJRWMD GIS data catalogue. data.floridaswater. Estuarine Research Reserve, [email protected] opendata.arcgis.com/, accessed June 2015. St. Johns River Water Management District. 2009b. Andrea Noel, Northeast Florida Aquatic Preserves, 2009 Land cover and land use classification system FDEP, [email protected] photointerpretation key. Designed by Patterson K, Hong DX, of Geonex Corporation. ftp://secure. sjrwmd.com/disk6b/lcover_luse/lcover2009/lu2009_PI_ Key/keylist.html, accessed June 2015. St. Johns River Water Management District. 2012. The St. Johns River Water supply impact study. www.sjrwmd. com/watersupplyimpactstudy/, accessed June 2015. U.S. Census. 2015. United States Census Bureau state & county quick facts. www.census.gov/quickfacts/, accessed March 2017. Weinstein MP, Balletto JH, Teal JM, Ludwig DF. 1997. Success criteria and adaptive management for a large- scale wetland restoration project. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4:111–127. Wicklein SM. 2004. Evaluation of water quality for two St. Johns River tributaries receiving septic tank effluent, Duval County, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03- 4299. Tallahassee. pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034299/ wri03_4299_wicklein.pdf, accessed June 2015. Williams AA, Eastman SF, Eash-Loucks WE, Kimball ME, Lehmann ML, Parker JD. 2014. Record northernmost endemic mangroves on the United States Atlantic coast with a note on latitudinal migration. Southeastern Naturalist 13:56–63. Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 155

Chapter 14 Conclusions and Recommendations

Kara R. Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Ryan P. Moyer, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Multiple priorities and recommendations for the map- ecosystems (DeLaune et al. 1994). Reliable freshwater ping and monitoring of Florida’s salt marshes and man- flow lessens saltwater intrusion and its subsequent con- groves emerged during the writing of this report and as sequences in coastal wetlands. The reestablishment or outcomes of three workshops (held in 2014, 2015, and protection of natural sheet flow allows for slower chang- 2017) that brought together statewide coastal wetland ex- es and less variability in the salinity of coastal wetlands. perts and stakeholders. Region-specific priorities and needs • Establishment of buffer zones and habitat connec- were addressed individually in each of chapter of this re- tivity: Salt marshes and mangroves can migrate inland port. Several priorities and needs were frequently identified in response to sea-level rise if adjacent habitat buffer as being important for the management, mapping, and zones with appropriate elevation are available. Perva- monitoring of coastal wetlands habitats across the state. sive shoreline development reduces the area available for these buffer zones and restricts landward migration Priorities and recommendations and adaptation of coastal wetlands, particularly in ar- for ecosystem management of eas with shoreline hardening. Federal, state, and local governmental agencies and nonprofit groups must co- Florida’s coastal habitats operate to coordinate connectivity among preserved • Freshwater management is critical to maintaining land and to establish or maintain buffer zones for land- coastal wetlands: Surface water drainage structures ward migration of coastal wetlands. concentrate freshwater flow into culverts and rivers, • Strategic regulations and enforcement: As coastal de- leading to highly variable flow and rapid changes in the velopment and the population of Florida continue to salinity of tidal creeks and coastal waters. Additional- expand, remaining coastal wetland habitat needs to be ly, reduced flow of surface and groundwater facilitates protected. Because the majority of Florida’s population saltwater intrusion accompanying sea-level rise, allow- lives near the coast, human development and coastal ing for higher salinities in surface and pore waters. In- wetlands are often close to and at odds with each other. creasing agricultural and urban demand for freshwater This proximity necessitates strategic planning to estab- will exacerbate this issue. Lack of freshwater can cause lish appropriate hydrology, water quality, natural shore- stress or mortality to coastal wetland plants if salt con- lines, natural buffer areas upslope, and enforcement of centrations exceed their salinity tolerance (Jimenez mangrove trimming regulations. Strict enforcement of et al. 1985, Silliman et al. 2005). Also, the high sulfate the no-net-loss policy is critical for coastal wetlands, but concentrations of seawater will increase rates of or- evaluation of ecosystem quality and function should also ganic matter decomposition in peat previously exposed be taken into account, as should acre-for-acre mitigation. to lo w-salinity conditions, making it more difficult for coastal wetlands to accrete substrate and maintain ele- • Early identification of stress:Some regions in Florida vation in the face of sea-level rise (Snedaker 1993). Peat have seen localized die-offs in salt marshes and man- collapse due to vegetation mortality and subsequent groves due to stressors such as erosion, pollution, and loss of living root structure can heighten the stress on altered hydrology. A lack of flushing can cause stress 156 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Table 14.1. Acreage of mangrove and salt marsh in the are generally created from aerial or satellite imagery, Everglades, per SFWMD LULC data (SFWMD 2009). then classified with supervised or unsupervised classification techniques. The accuracy must be verified with Year Mangrove Salt marsh ground-truthing. These efforts are time-consuming and 1995 296,372 8,144 expensive, but extensive ground-truthing data reveal sig- 1999 345,908 45,188 nificant differences from land-use maps created exclu- 2005 348,018 45,335 sively from airborne or satellite remote sensing data (see Chapter 6 for example in Charlotte Harbor). Table 14.2. Acreage of mangrove and salt marsh in • Employ consistent mapping techniques and land-cover Biscayne Bay according to SFWMD LULC data categories: Fortunately, many land cover data sets are (SFWMD 2009). available for Florida and most of them use land cover categories that include salt marsh and mangroves in Year Mangrove Salt marsh some way (full descriptions available in Chapter 1). But 1995 14,526 1,155 the use of different methodologies between mapping 1999 16,261 641 efforts (or within any mapping effort) hinders temporal 2005 15,184 586 and spatial comparisons. 2009 17,455 5,623 For instance, water management district (WMD) land use/land cover (LULC) mapping data were used to present acreage and distribution data for many regions in the form of stagnation, anoxia, or hypersalinity. in this report. The benefit of these WMD data sets is Stressed vegetation is more vulnerable to secondary that they offered nearly continuous coverage of Florida stressors such as fungal infections or excessive herbiv- regions with many datasets spanning multiple years. But ory (Silliman et al. 2005, Elmer et al. 2012). Human-in- these WMD data sets were not without their drawbacks. duced stressors such as altered hydrology and pollution While WMD maps can be compiled for every region in act slowly and can be remedied when identified early Florida, the maps are not always directly comparable be- (see examples in Chapter 7). tween WMDs. The most recent years of data, minimum • Combat invasive vegetation: Invasive vegetation, par- mapping units, and pixel size from aerial photography ticularly Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper), and vary among WMDs. Even within WMDs, methodology Casuarina spp. (Australian pines) encroach on the bound- varied from year to year, so some temporal changes were aries of coastal wetlands. Preventing further spread of es- due to methodology rather than a change in land cover. tablished invasives and early recognition of new invasive Time-series data were not included in this report species require constant effort and vigilance. for much of the South Florida Water Management Dis- trict due to drastic fluctuations in acreages that were Mapping priorities and recommendations largely the result of different methodologies. For example, salt marsh acreage in the Everglades appears to • Map expansion of mangroves: Land classification have increased fivefold from 1995 to 1999 (see Table schemes are not designed to identify a mixture of salt 14.1; 2009 data are not included due to insufficient cov- marsh and mangrove vegetation. This categorical clas- erage of the Everglades). Similar issues were observed sification system hinders tracking the rates and range in LULC data around Biscayne Bay (Table 14.2), as salt of mangrove expansion, as mangroves often occur as marsh acreage increased tenfold from 2005 to 2009. individuals or clusters scattered in a salt marsh. A pres- This increase in acreage results from regions, previous- ence/absence mapping (or monitoring) technique is ly classified as freshwater marshes, tidal flats, or man- needed for accurate tracking of the expansion of mangroves, being reclassified as salt marsh. Small annual grove habitat northward and landward in Florida. changes in salt marsh and mangrove extent do occur • Map invasive species: Invasive species are seldom as a result of restoration projects, mangrove encroach- mapped in traditional land cover efforts unless they ment into salt marshes, and small amounts of permit- merit their own land-cover category. Without this spe- ted development, but such drastic changes indicate dif- cies-specific detail, it is difficult to quantify the acreage fering mapping methodology. and spread of invasive vegetation. LULC categories used by the WMDs were also modified from year to year, particularly in early WMD • Increase ground-truthing efforts: Land cover maps mapping efforts. For instance, the mixed scrub–shrub Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 157

wetland classification (FLUCCS code 6460) was not priorities for the adaptive management of these unique used in the 1994–1995 Northwest Florida Water Man- coastal ecosystems and the numerous threatened and en- agement District LULC data, yet it proliferated in map- dangered species that depend on them. Knowledge of the ping data thereafter (NWFWMD 2010). Florida is for- region-specific extent, trends, and threats to salt marshes tunate to have so many available data sets describing and mangroves is crucial for the long-term management coastal wetland acreage, but variability in methodolo- of these economically and ecologically valuable habitats. gy and categories requires careful attention of the end user to accurately interpret data. Works cited Delaune RD, Nyman JA, Patrick WH Jr. 1994. Peat Monitoring priorities and recommendations collapse, ponding, and wetland loss in a rapidly As fully described in the introduction of this report, submerging coastal marsh. Journal of Coastal more than a dozen monitoring methods are commonly Research 10:1021–1030. used in Florida’s coastal wetlands. This hinders direct Elmer WH, LaMondia JA, Caruso FL. 2012. Association comparison between monitoring efforts among sites or between Fusarium spp. on Spartina alterniflora and regions. Additionally, monitoring efforts are too often dieback sites in Connecticut and Massachusetts. short term due to funding limitations. In the face of eco- Estuaries and Coasts 35:436–444. logical shifts due to sea-level rise, long-term statewide Jimenez JA, Lugo AE, Cintron G. 1985. Tree mortality in monitoring is needed to track the responses of vegetation mangrove forests. Biotropica 17:177–185. and sediment accretion in coastal wetlands. Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2010. Many monitoring efforts are challenging in salt marsh- GIS data directory. www.nwfwater.com/Data- es and mangroves, as these habitats are naturally difficult to Publications/GIS-Mapping/GIS-Data-Directory, access. The dense trunks and prop roots hinder access on accessed May 2015. foot, while vegetation trampling in salt marshes makes it Silliman BR, van de Koppel J, Bertness MD, Stanton LE, challenging to monitor nondestructively. Moreover, many of Mendelssohn IA. 2005. Drought, snails, and large- the monitoring methods originally developed for terrestrial scale die-off of southern U.S. salt marshes. Science forests are difficult to apply to mangroves due to the plants’ 310:1803–1806. unusual growth patterns. The classic measurements of tree Snedaker S. 1993. Impact on mangroves. Pp. 282–305 in density, diameter at breast height, and biomass are often Maul GA (ed.) Climate change in the intra-Americas problematic with mangroves because the trunks can grow sea. Edward Arnold, London. at any angle, even horizontal. While certain metrics can South Florida Water Management District. 2009. be acquired only through field measurements, alternative SFWMD GIS data catalogue. www.sfwmd.gov/ methods such as the use of drones, LiDAR, or citizen sci- science-data/gis, accessed September 2015. entists can address some monitoring and ground-truthing needs. Contacts Another identified priority in monitoring is the need to find metrics that recognize an ecosystem’s stability and Kara Radabaugh, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva- ability to recover from disturbances (ecosystem resistance tion Commission, [email protected] and resilience). These metrics may vary depending on Ryan Moyer, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation whether the wetland is natural, restored, or actively man- Commission, [email protected] aged and on the level of disturbance or ecosystem stress that the wetland has experienced. Conclusion The Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Moni- toring Program will continue efforts to coordinate, facilitate collaboration, and address gaps in coastal habitat mapping and monitoring programs in Florida. The information compiled in this report is designed not only to facilitate decision-making for the mapping and monitoring of coastal wetland habitats, but also to recommend 158 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Appendix A Acronym List

Acronym Meaning Acronym Meaning ANERR Apalachicola National Estuarine Research IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reserve IRC Institute for Regional Conservation BMI Battelle Memorial Institute IRL Indian River Lagoon C-CAP Coastal Change Analysis Program LANDFIRE Landscape Fire and Resource Management CCHA Critical Coastal Habitat Assessment Planning Tools CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Landsat Land remote-sensing satellite Management Plan Landsat TM Landsat Thematic Mapper CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Landsat Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus CHIMMP Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and ETM+ Monitoring Program LC Land Cover CHNEP Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging CLC Cooperative Land Cover LTER Long Term Ecological Research CRG Coastal Resources Group Inc. LULC Land Use/Land Cover CSFP Central and Southern Florida Project LWL Lake Worth Lagoon CSF Conservancy of Southwest Florida MAP Monitoring and Assessment Plan DEM Digital Elevation Model MFL Minimum Flows and Levels DOQQs Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads MRGIS Marine Resources Geographic Information EAA Everglades Agricultural Area System ELVes Everglades Landscape Vegetation Succession NASA National Aeronautics and Space ENP Everglades National Park Administration ETM+ Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus NCSU North Carolina State University FCE Florida Coastal Everglades NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index FCE LTER Florida Coastal Everglades Long Term NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve Ecological Research NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System FDEP Florida Department of Environmental NLCD National Land Cover Data Protection NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric FDER Florida Department of Environmental Administration Regulation (now FDEP) NPS National Park Service FDOT Florida Department of Transportation NRPA Natural Resource Protection Area FGCU Florida Gulf Coast University NVCS National Vegetation Classification Standard FLUCCS Florida Land Use and Cover Classification NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management System District FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory NWI National Wetlands Inventory FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation NWR National Wildlife Refuge Commission PACE Pre-Aerosol Clouds and ocean Ecosystem GAP National Gap Analysis Program PBCERM Palm Beach County Department of GCPO LCC Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Environmental Resources Management Conservation Cooperative PLC Preliminary Land Cover GIS Geographic Information System PSRP Picayune Strand Restoration Project G-LiHT Goddard’s LiDAR, Hyperspectral, and Thermal Imager PSSF Picayune Strand State Forest GTMNERR Guana Tolomato National Estuarine RBAP Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve Research Reserve RBNERR Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research HGM Hydrogeomorphic Methodology Reserve HyspIRI Hyperspectral Infrared Imager RSET Rod Surface Elevation Table ICW Intracoastal Waterway Coastal Habitat Integrated Mapping and Monitoring Program Report: Florida 159

Acronym Meanng SALCC South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperation SBEP Sarasota Bay Estuary Program SECN Southeast Coastal Network SET Surface Elevation Table SFCN South Florida/Caribbean Network SFNRC South Florida Natural Resources Center SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model SLE St. Lucie Estuary SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District SWFRPC Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management SWMP System Wide Monitoring Program TBEP Tampa Bay Estuary Program TM Thematic Mapper TNC The Nature Conservancy UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method UME Unusual Mortality Event USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFSP University of South Florida St. Petersburg USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey USNPS United States National Park Service WAP Wetland Assessment Procedure WMD Water Management District WRAP Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure WRIA Water Resource Inventory and Assessment 160 Radabaugh, Powell, and Moyer, editors

Appendix B Species List

Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Acer rubrum red maple Monanthochloe littoralis Key grass Acrostichum danaeifolium giant leather fern Mycteria americana Wood Stork Acrostichum spp. leather ferns Nerodia fasciata salt marsh snake Aedes spp. marsh mosquitoes Odocoileus virginianus clavium Key deer Ammodramus maritimus Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Pandion haliaetus Osprey mirabilis Pedinophyceae chlorophyte microalgae Arundo donax giant cane Phragmites australis common reed Aureoumbra lagunensis microscopic alga; causes Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill brown tide Quercus virginiana live oak Avicennia germinans black mangrove Rhizophora mangle red mangrove Baccharis angustifolia saltwater false willow Salicornia bigelovii dwarf glasswort Baccharis spp. sea myrtle/groundsel shrubs Salicornia spp. glassworts Batis maritima saltwort Sarcocornia ambigua perennial glasswort Borrichia arborescens seaside tansy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm Borrichia frutescens sea oxeye daisy Salix caroliniana coastal plain willow Callinectes sapidus Atlantic blue crab Sarcocornia ambigua perennial glasswort Carya aquatica water hickory Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper Casuarina spp. Australian pines Scirpus pungens three-square bulrush Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Willet Scirpus spp. bulrushes Cinnamomum camphora camphor tree Schoenoplectus robustus saltmarsh bulrush Cladium jamaicense sawgrass Spartina alterniflora smooth cordgrass Cladium mariscoides smooth sawgrass Spartina bakeri sand cordgrass Coccoloba uvifera sea grape Spartina patens saltmeadow cordgrass Colubrina asiatica latherleaf Spartina spartinae Gulf cordgrass Conocarpus erectus buttonwood Sporobolus virginicus seashore dropseed Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster Taxodium distichum bald cypress Crocodylus acutus American crocodile Taxodium spp. cypresses Cytospora rhizophorae mangrove fungus Thalassia testudinum turtle grass Distichlis spicata saltgrass Triadica sebifera Chinese tallow Eichornia crassipes water hyacinth Typha spp. cattails Eleocharis cellulosa Gulf Coast spikerush Fimbristylis spadicea marsh fimbry Juncus roemerianus black needlerush Juniperus silicicola southern red cedar Juniperus virginiana red cedar Laguncularia racemosa white mangrove Lygodium japonicum Japanese climbing fern Lygodium microphyllum Old World climbing fern Malaclemys terrapin diamondback terrapin Melaleuca quinquenervia melaleuca